This is a modern-English version of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Dagupan" to "David": Volume 7, Slice 9, originally written by Various. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.


Transcriber’s note: A few typographical errors have been corrected. They appear in the text like this, and the explanation will appear when the mouse pointer is moved over the marked passage. Sections in Greek will yield a transliteration when the pointer is moved over them, and words using diacritic characters in the Latin Extended Additional block, which may not display in some fonts or browsers, will display an unaccented version.

Links to other EB articles: Links to articles residing in other EB volumes will be made available when the respective volumes are introduced online.
 

THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

 

VOLUME VII SLICE IX

Dagupan to David


 

Articles in This Slice

Articles in This Section

DAGUPAN DANDY
DAHABEAH DANEGELD
DAHL, HANS DANELAGH
DAHL, JOHANN CHRISTIAN DANGERFIELD, THOMAS
DAHL, MICHAEL DANIEL (biblical figure)
DAHL, VLADIMIR IVANOVICH DANIEL (Russian travel-writer)
DAHLBERG, ERIK JOHANSEN, COUNT DANIEL, GABRIEL
DAHLGREN, JOHN ADOLF DANIEL, SAMUEL
DAHLGREN, KARL FREDRIK DANIELL, JOHN FREDERIC
DAHLIA DANIELL, THOMAS
DAHLMANN, FRIEDRICH CHRISTOPH DANNAT, WILLIAM T.
DAHLSTJERNA, GUNNO DANNECKER, JOHANN HEINRICH VON
DAHN, JULIUS SOPHUS FELIX DANNEWERK
DAHOMEY DANSVILLE
DAILLÉ, JEAN DANTE
DAIRY and DAIRY-FARMING DANTON, GEORGE JACQUES
DAIS DANUBE
DAISY DANVERS
DAKAR DANVILLE (Illinois, U.S.A.)
DALAGUETE DANVILLE (Kentucky, U.S.A.)
DALBEATTIE DANVILLE (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)
DALBERG DANVILLE (Virginia, U.S.A.)
DALE, ROBERT WILLIAM DANZIG
DALE, SIR THOMAS DAPHLA HILLS
DALECARLIA DAPHNAE
DALGAIRNS, JOHN DOBREE DAPHNE (Greek mythology)
DALGARNO, GEORGE DAPHNE (genus of shrubs)
DALHOUSIE, JAMES ANDREW BROUN RAMSAY DAPHNEPHORIA
DALHOUSIE, FOX MAULE RAMSAY DAPHNIS
DALIN, OLOF VON DARÁB
DALKEITH DARBHANGA
DALKEY D’ARBLAY, FRANCES
DALLAS, ALEXANDER JAMES DARBOY, GEORGES
DALLAS, GEORGE MIFFLIN DARCY, THOMAS DARCY
DALLAS DARDANELLES (strait)
DALLE DARDANELLES (town)
DALLIN, CYRUS EDWIN DARDANUS
DALLING AND BULWER, WILLIAM HENRY LYTTON EARLE BULWER DARDISTAN
DALLMEYER, JOHN HENRY DARES PHRYGIUS
DALL’ ONGARO, FRANCESCO DAR-ES-SALAAM
DALMATIA DARESTE DE LA CHAVANNE, ANTOINE ELISABETH CLÉOPHAS
DALMATIC DARESTE DE LA CHAVANNE, RODOLPHE MADELEINE CLÉOPHAS
DALMELLINGTON DARFUR
DALOU, JULES DARGAI
DALRADIAN DARGOMIJSKY, ALEXANDER SERGEIVICH
DALRIADA DARIAL
DALRY DARIEN
DALTON, JOHN DARIUS
DALTON DARJEELING
DALTON-IN-FURNESS DARLEY, GEORGE
DALY, AUGUSTIN DARLING, GRACE HORSLEY
DALYELL, THOMAS DARLING
DAM DARLINGTON
DAMAGES DARLINGTONIA
DAMANHŪR DARLY, MATTHIAS
DAMARALAND DARMESTETER, JAMES
DAMASCENING DARMSTADT
DAMASCIUS DARNLEY, HENRY STEWART
DAMASCUS DARRANG
DAMASK DARTFORD
DAMASK STEEL DARTMOOR
DAMASUS DARTMOUTH (town of Canada)
DAMAUN DARTMOUTH (town of England)
DAME DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
DAME’S VIOLET DARTMOUTH, EARL OF
DAMGHAN DARU, PIERRE ANTOINE NOËL BRUNO
DAMIANI, PIETRO DARWEN
DAMIEN, FATHER DARWIN, CHARLES ROBERT
DAMIENS, ROBERT FRANÇOIS DARWIN, ERASMUS
DAMIETTA DASENT, SIR GEORGE WEBBE
DAMIRI DASHKOV, CATHERINA ROMANOVNA VORONTSOV
DAMIRON, JEAN PHILIBERT DASS, PETTER
DAMJANICH, JÁNOS DASYURE
DAMMAR DATE PALM
DAMMARTIN DATIA
DAMME DATIVE
DAMOCLES DATOLITE
DAMOH DAUB, KARL
DAMON DAUBENTON, LOUIS-JEAN-MARIE
DAMOPHON DAUBENY, CHARLES GILES BRIDLE
DAMP DAUBIGNY, CHARLES FRANÇOIS
DAMPIER, WILLIAM DAUBRÉE, GABRIEL AUGUSTE
DAN (tribe of Israel) DAUDET, ALPHONSE
DAN (town of ancient Israel) DAULATABAD
DANA, CHARLES ANDERSON DAUMIER, HONORÉ
DANA, FRANCIS DAUN (DHAUN), LEOPOLD JOSEF
DANA, JAMES DWIGHT DAUNOU, PIERRE CLAUDE FRANÇOIS
DANAE DAUPHIN
DANAO DAUPHINÉ
DANAUS DAURAT, JEAN
DANBURITE DAVENANT, CHARLES
DANBURY DAVENANT, SIR WILLIAM
DANBY, FRANCIS DAVENPORT, EDWARD LOOMIS
DANCE (English family) DAVENPORT, ROBERT
DANCE (dancing) DAVENPORT
DANCOURT, FLORENT CARTON DAVENTRY
DANDELION DAVEY OF FERNHURST, HORACE DAVEY
DANDOLO DAVID
DANDOLO, VINCENZO  

731

731

DAGUPAN, a town and the most important commercial centre of the province of Pangasinán, Luzon, Philippine Islands, on a branch of the Agno river near its entrance into the Gulf of Lingayen, 120 m. by rail N.N.W. of Manila. Pop. (1903), 20,357. It is served by the Manila & Dagupan railway. Dagupan has a healthy climate. It is the chief point of exportation for a very rich province, which produces sugar, indigo, Indian corn, copra, and especially rice. There are several rice mills here. Salt is an important export, being manufactured in salt water swamps and marshes throughout the province of Pangasinán (whose name, from asin, “salt,” means “the place where salt is produced”). In these, marshes grows the nipa palm, from which a liquor is distilled—there are a number of small distilleries here. Dagupan has a small shipyard in which sailing vessels and steam launches are constructed. The principal language is Pangasinán.

DAGUPAN is a town and the most important commercial center of Pangasinán province in Luzon, Philippines, located on a branch of the Agno River near its entry into the Gulf of Lingayen, 120 miles northwest of Manila by rail. Population (1903), 20,357. It is served by the Manila & Dagupan railway. Dagupan has a healthy climate. It is the main hub for exporting a very rich province that produces sugar, indigo, corn, copra, and especially rice. There are several rice mills in the area. Salt is an important export, produced in saltwater swamps and marshes throughout Pangasinán (whose name comes from asin, meaning “salt,” which signifies “the place where salt is made”). In these marshes, the nipa palm grows, and a liquor is distilled from it—there are several small distilleries here. Dagupan also has a small shipyard that builds sailing vessels and steam launches. The main language spoken is Pangasinán.


DAHABEAH (also spelt dahabīya, dahabīyeh, dahabeeyah, &c.), an Arabic word (variously derived from dahab, gold, and dahab, one of the forms of the verb to go) for a native passenger boat used on the Nile. The typical form is that of a barge-like house-boat provided with sails, resembling the painted galleys represented on the tombs of the Pharaohs. Similar state barges were used by the Mahommedan rulers of Egypt, and from the circumstance that these vessels were ornamented with gilding is attributed the usual derivation of the name from gold. Before the introduction of steamers dahabeahs were generally used by travellers ascending the Nile, and they are still the favourite means of travelling for the leisured and wealthy classes. The modern dahabeah is often made of iron, draws about 2 ft. of water, and is provided with one very large and one small sail. According to size it provides accommodation for from two to a dozen passengers. Steam dahabeahs are also built to meet the requirements of tourists.

DAHABEAH (also spelled dahabīya, dahabīyeh, dahabeeyah, etc.), an Arabic term (derived from dahab, meaning gold, and dahab, one of the forms of the verb to go) for a traditional passenger boat used on the Nile. The typical design is like a barge-style houseboat with sails, resembling the painted galleys found in the tombs of the Pharaohs. Similar grand boats were used by the Muslim rulers of Egypt, and the name is often thought to come from their gold decorations. Before steamers were introduced, dahabeahs were commonly used by travelers heading up the Nile, and they continue to be the preferred mode of travel for the wealthy and leisurely. Modern dahabeahs are often made of iron, draw about 2 feet of water, and come with one large sail and one smaller sail. Depending on their size, they can accommodate anywhere from two to twelve passengers. Steam dahabeahs are also built to cater to tourist needs.


DAHL, HANS (1840-  ), Norwegian painter, was born at Hardanger. After being in the Swedish army he studied art at Karlsruhe and at Düsseldorf, being a notable painter of landscape and genre. His work has considerable humour, but his colouring is hard and rather crude. In 1889 he settled in Berlin. His pictures are very popular in Norway.

DAHL, HANS (1840-  ), Norwegian painter, was born in Hardanger. After serving in the Swedish army, he studied art in Karlsruhe and Düsseldorf, becoming known for his landscape and genre paintings. His work often features a lot of humor, but his color choices can be harsh and somewhat rough. In 1889, he moved to Berlin. His paintings are very popular in Norway.


DAHL, JOHANN CHRISTIAN (1778-1857), Norwegian landscape painter, was born in Bergen. He formed his style without much tuition, remaining at Bergen till he was twenty-four, when he left for the better field of Copenhagen, and ultimately settled in Dresden in 1818. He is usually included in the German school, although he was thus close on forty years of age when he finally took up his abode in Dresden, where he was quickly received into the Academy and became professor. German landscape-painting was not greatly advanced at that time, and Dahl contributed to improve it. He continued to reside in Dresden, though he travelled into Tirol and in Italy, painting many pictures, one of his best being that of the “Outbreak of Vesuvius, 1820.” He was fond of extraordinary effects, as seen in his “Winter at Munich,” and his “Dresden by Moonlight;” also the “Haven of Copenhagen,” and the “Schloss of Friedrichsburg,” under the same condition. At Dresden may be seen many of his works, notably a large picture called “Norway,” and a “Storm at Sea.” He was received into several academic bodies, and had the orders of Wasa and St Olaf sent him by the king of Norway and Sweden.

DAHL, JOHANN CHRISTIAN (1778-1857), a Norwegian landscape painter, was born in Bergen. He developed his style with little formal training, staying in Bergen until he was twenty-four, when he moved to Copenhagen for better opportunities and eventually settled in Dresden in 1818. He is typically associated with the German school, even though he was nearly forty when he finally made Dresden his home, where he was quickly accepted into the Academy and became a professor. At that time, German landscape painting wasn't very advanced, and Dahl helped to improve it. He continued to live in Dresden but traveled to Tirol and Italy, creating many paintings, one of his best being “Outbreak of Vesuvius, 1820.” He enjoyed dramatic effects, as seen in his works “Winter at Munich,” “Dresden by Moonlight,” “Haven of Copenhagen,” and “Schloss of Friedrichsburg” under similar atmospheres. Many of his works can be seen in Dresden, including a large painting titled “Norway” and “Storm at Sea.” He was accepted into several academic organizations and received the Wasa and St. Olaf orders from the kings of Norway and Sweden.


DAHL, MICHAEL (1656-1743), Swedish portrait painter, was born at Stockholm. He received his first professional education from Ernst Klocke, who had a respectable position in that northern town, which, however, Dahl left in his twenty-second year. His first destination was England, where he did not long remain, but crossed over to Paris, and made his way at last to Rome, there taking up his abode for a considerable time, painting the portraits of Queen Christina and other celebrities. In 1688 he returned to England, and became for some years a dangerous rival to Kneller. He died in London. His portraits still exist in many houses, but his name is not always preserved with them. Nagler (Künstler-Lexicon) says those at Hampton Court and at Petworth contest the palm with those of the better known and vastly more employed painter.

DAHL, MICHAEL (1656-1743), Swedish portrait painter, was born in Stockholm. He got his initial training from Ernst Klocke, who held a respected position in that northern town, although Dahl left when he was just 22. His first stop was England, where he didn’t stay long before moving to Paris, and eventually made his way to Rome, where he lived for quite some time, painting the portraits of Queen Christina and other notable figures. In 1688, he returned to England and became a significant rival to Kneller for several years. He passed away in London. Many of his portraits can still be found in various homes, but his name isn’t always associated with them. Nagler (Künstler-Lexicon) notes that those at Hampton Court and Petworth rival the works of the more renowned and frequently utilized painter.


DAHL (or DALE), VLADIMIR IVANOVICH (1802-1872), Russian author and philologist, was born of Scandinavian parentage in 1802, and received his education at the naval cadets’ institution at St Petersburg. He joined the Black Sea fleet in 1819; but at a later date he entered the military service, and was thus engaged in the Polish campaign of 1831, and in the expedition against Khiva. He was afterwards appointed to a medical post in one of the government hospitals at St Petersburg, and was ultimately transferred to a situation in the civil service. The latter years of his life were spent at Moscow, and he died there on November 3 (October 22), 1872. Under the name of Kossack Lugansky he obtained considerable fame by his stories of Russian life:—The Dream and the Waking, A Story of Misery, Happiness, and Truth, The Door-Keeper (Dvernik), The Officer’s Valet (Denshchik). His greatest work, however, was a Dictionary of the Living Russian Tongue (Tolkovyi Slovar Zhivago Velikorusskago Yasika), which appeared in four volumes between 1861 and 1866, and is of the most essential service to the student of the popular literature and folk-lore of Russia. It was based on the results of his own investigations throughout the various provinces of Russia,—investigations which had furnished him with no fewer than 4000 popular tales and upwards of 30,000 proverbs. Among his other publications may be mentioned Bemerkungen zu Zimmermann’s Entwurf des Kriegstheaters Russlands gegen Khiwa, published in German at Orenburg, and a Handbook of Botany (Moscow, 1849).

DAHL (or DALE), VLADIMIR IVANOVICH (1802-1872), a Russian author and philologist, was born to Scandinavian parents in 1802 and was educated at the naval cadet school in St. Petersburg. He joined the Black Sea fleet in 1819, but later switched to military service, taking part in the Polish campaign of 1831 and the expedition against Khiva. He was then appointed to a medical position at one of the government hospitals in St. Petersburg, eventually moving into the civil service. He spent his later years in Moscow, where he died on November 3 (October 22), 1872. Writing under the name Kossack Lugansky, he gained significant recognition for his stories about Russian life, including The Dream and the Waking, A Story of Misery, Happiness and Truth, The Door-Keeper (Dvernik), and The Officer’s Valet (Denshchik). However, his most notable work was the Dictionary of the Living Russian Tongue (Tolkovyi Slovar Zhivago Velikorusskago Yasika), which was published in four volumes between 1861 and 1866 and is extremely valuable for anyone studying Russia's popular literature and folklore. This dictionary was based on his research across various provinces in Russia, which yielded over 4,000 folk tales and more than 30,000 proverbs. Among his other works are Bemerkungen zu Zimmermann’s Entwurf des Kriegstheaters Russlands gegen Khiwa, published in German in Orenburg, and a Handbook of Botany (Moscow, 1849).

A collected edition of his works appeared at St Petersburg in 8 volumes, 1860-1861.

A collected edition of his works was published in St. Petersburg in 8 volumes from 1860 to 1861.


DAHLBERG (Dahlbergh), ERIK JOHANSEN, COUNT (1625-1703), Swedish soldier and engineer, was born at Stockholm. His early studies took the direction of the science of fortification, and as an engineer officer he saw service in the latter years of the Thirty Years’ War, and in Poland. As adjutant-general and engineer adviser to Charles X. (Gustavus), he had a great share in the famous crossing of the frozen Belts, and at the sieges of Copenhagen and Kronborg he directed the engineers. In spite of these distinguished services, Dahlberg remained an obscure lieutenant-colonel for many years. His patriotism, however, proved superior to the tempting offers Charles II. of England made to induce him to enter the British service, though, in that age of professional soldiering, there was nothing in the offer that a man of honour could not accept. At last his talents were recognized, and in 1676 he became director-general of fortifications. In the wars of the next twenty-five years Dahlberg again rendered distinguished service, alike in attack (as at Helsingborg in 1677, and Dünamünde in 1700) and defence (as in the two sieges of Riga in 1700): and his work in repairing the fortresses of his own country, not less important, earned for him the title of the “Vauban of Sweden.” He was also the founder of the Swedish engineer corps. He retired as field-marshal in 1702, and died the following year.

DAHLBERG (Dahlbergh), ERIK JOHANSEN, COUNT (1625-1703), a Swedish soldier and engineer, was born in Stockholm. He initially focused on the science of fortification in his studies, and as an engineer officer, he served towards the end of the Thirty Years’ War and in Poland. As adjutant-general and engineering advisor to Charles X (Gustavus), he played a significant role in the famous crossing of the frozen Belts, and at the sieges of Copenhagen and Kronborg, he directed the engineers. Despite these notable contributions, Dahlberg remained an unremarkable lieutenant-colonel for many years. His patriotism, however, overcame the alluring offers made by Charles II of England to entice him to join British service, even though, in that era of professional soldiering, there was nothing in the offer that a man of honor couldn't accept. Finally, his abilities were acknowledged, and in 1676, he became director-general of fortifications. In the wars over the next twenty-five years, Dahlberg once again provided distinguished service in attacks (such as at Helsingborg in 1677 and Dünamünde in 1700) and defenses (as during the two sieges of Riga in 1700): his work in repairing the fortresses in his own country was equally important, earning him the title of the “Vauban of Sweden.” He also established the Swedish engineer corps. He retired as field-marshal in 1702 and passed away the following year.

Erik Dahlberg was responsible for the fine collection of drawings called Suecia antiqua et hodierna (Stockholm, 1660-1716; 2nd edition, 1856; 3rd edition, 1864-1865), and assisted Pufendorf in his Histoire de Charles X Gustave. He wrote a memoir of his life (to be found in Svenska Bibliotek, 1757) and an account of the campaigns of Charles X. (ed. Lundblad, Stockholm, 1823).

Erik Dahlberg was behind the impressive collection of drawings titled Suecia antiqua et hodierna (Stockholm, 1660-1716; 2nd edition, 1856; 3rd edition, 1864-1865) and helped Pufendorf with his Histoire de Charles X Gustave. He wrote a memoir of his life (available in Svenska Bibliotek, 1757) and a description of the campaigns of Charles X. (ed. Lundblad, Stockholm, 1823).


DAHLGREN, JOHN ADOLF (1809-1870), admiral in the U.S. navy, was the son of the Swedish consul at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 732 and was born in that city on the 13th of November 1809. He entered the United States navy in 1826, and saw some service in the Civil War in command of the South Atlantic blockading squadron. But he was chiefly notable as a scientific officer. His knowledge of mathematics caused him to be employed on the coast survey in 1834. In 1837 his eyesight threatened to fail, he retired in 1838-1842, and in 1847 he was transferred to the ordnance department. In this post he applied himself to the improvement of the guns of the U.S. navy. He was the inventor of the smooth bore gun which bore his name, but was from its shape familiarly known as “the soda water bottle.” It was used in the Civil War, and for several years afterwards in the United States navy. Dahlgren’s guns were first mounted in a vessel named the “Experiment,” which cruised under his command from 1857 till 1859. They were “the first practical application of results obtained by experimental determinations of pressure at different points along the bore, by Colonel Bomford’s tests—that is by boring holes in the walls of the gun, through which the pressure acts upon other bodies, such as pistol balls, pistons, &c.” (Cf. article by J. M. Brooke in Hamersley’s Naval Encyclopaedia.) When the Civil War broke out, he was on ordnance duty in the Washington navy yard, and he was one of the three officers who did not resign from confederate sympathies. His rank at the time was commander, and the command could only by held by a captain. President Lincoln insisted on retaining Commander Dahlgren, and he was qualified to keep the post by special act of Congress. He became post-captain in 1862 and rear-admiral in 1863. He commanded the Washington navy yard when he died on the 12th of July 1870.

DAHLGREN, JOHN ADOLF (1809-1870), admiral in the U.S. Navy, was the son of the Swedish consul in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 732 and was born in that city on November 13, 1809. He joined the United States Navy in 1826 and served during the Civil War as the commander of the South Atlantic blockading squadron. However, he was mainly recognized as a scientific officer. His background in mathematics led him to work on the coast survey in 1834. In 1837, when his eyesight began to fail, he retired from active duty, but from 1838 to 1842, he continued contributing to the navy and in 1847, he moved to the ordnance department. In this role, he focused on improving the guns used by the U.S. Navy. He invented the smoothbore gun that carried his name, but because of its shape, it was commonly referred to as “the soda water bottle.” It was utilized during the Civil War and for several years afterwards in the U.S. Navy. Dahlgren’s guns were first mounted on a vessel called the “Experiment,” which he commanded from 1857 to 1859. They represented “the first practical application of results obtained by experimental determinations of pressure at different points along the bore, by Colonel Bomford’s tests—that is by boring holes in the walls of the gun, through which the pressure acts upon other bodies, such as pistol balls, pistons, &c.” (Cf. article by J. M. Brooke in Hamersley’s Naval Encyclopaedia.) When the Civil War began, he was serving in the Washington Navy Yard, and he was one of only three officers who did not resign due to Confederate sympathies. At that time, his rank was commander, which could only be held by a captain. President Lincoln insisted on keeping Commander Dahlgren in his position, which was validated by a special act of Congress. He was promoted to post-captain in 1862 and rear-admiral in 1863. He was in command of the Washington Navy Yard when he passed away on July 12, 1870.

A memoir of Admiral Dahlgren by his widow was published at Boston in 1882.

A memoir of Admiral Dahlgren by his widow was published in Boston in 1882.

(D. H.)

DAHLGREN, KARL FREDRIK (1791-1844), Swedish poet, was born at Stensbruk in Östergötland on the 20th of June 1791. At a time when literary partisanship ran high in Sweden, and the writers divided themselves into “Goths” and “Phosphorists,” Dahlgren made himself indispensable to the Phosphorists by his polemical activity. In the mock-heroic poem of Markalls sömnlösa nätter (Markall’s Sleepless Nights), in which the Phosphorists ridiculed the academician Per Adam Wallmark and others, Dahlgren, who was a genuine humorist, took a prominent part. In 1825 he published Babels Torn (The Tower of Babel), a satire, and a comedy, Argus in Olympen; and in 1828 two volumes of poems. In 1829 he was appointed to an ecclesiastical post in Stockholm, which he held until his death. In a series of odes and dithyrambic pieces, entitled Mollbergs Epistlar (1819, 1820), he strove to emulate the wonderful lyric genius of K. M. Bellman, of whom he was a student and follower. From 1825 to 1827 he edited a critical journal entitled Kometen (The Comet), and in company with Almqvist he founded the Manhemsförbund, a short-lived society of agricultural socialists. In 1834 he collected his poems in one volume; and in 1837 appeared his last book, Angbåts-Sånger (Steamboat Songs). On the 1st of May 1844 he died at Stockholm. Dahlgren is one of the best humorous writers that Sweden has produced; but he was perhaps at his best in realistic and idyllic description. His little poem of Zephyr and the Girl, which is to be found in every selection from Swedish poetry, is a good example of his sensuous and ornamented style.

DAHLGREN, KARL FREDRIK (1791-1844), Swedish poet, was born in Stensbruk, Östergötland on June 20, 1791. During a time of intense literary rivalry in Sweden, where writers split into the “Goths” and “Phosphorists,” Dahlgren became essential to the Phosphorists through his sharp critiques. In the mock-heroic poem Markalls sömnlösa nätter (Markall’s Sleepless Nights), where the Phosphorists mocked academician Per Adam Wallmark and others, Dahlgren, a true humorist, played a significant role. In 1825, he published Babels Torn (The Tower of Babel), a satire, along with a comedy, Argus in Olympen; and in 1828, he released two volumes of poetry. In 1829, he took an ecclesiastical position in Stockholm, which he held until his death. In a series of odes and dithyrambic pieces titled Mollbergs Epistlar (1819, 1820), he aimed to emulate the remarkable lyrical talent of K. M. Bellman, whom he studied and followed. From 1825 to 1827, he edited a critical journal called Kometen (The Comet), and together with Almqvist, he founded the Manhemsförbund, a short-lived society of agricultural socialists. In 1834, he compiled his poems into one volume; and in 1837, his final book, Angbåts-Sånger (Steamboat Songs), was published. He passed away in Stockholm on May 1, 1844. Dahlgren is considered one of Sweden's finest humorists, though he often excelled in realistic and idyllic descriptions. His short poem Zephyr and the Girl, found in almost every collection of Swedish poetry, is a prime example of his rich and decorative style.

His works were collected and published after his death by A. J. Arwidsson (5 vols., Stockholm, 1847-1852).

His works were gathered and published after his death by A. J. Arwidsson (5 vols., Stockholm, 1847-1852).


DAHLIA, a genus of herbaceous plants of the natural order Compositae, so called after Dr Dahl, a pupil of Linnaeus. The genus contains about nine species indigenous in the high sandy plains of Mexico. The dahlia was first introduced into Britain from Spain in 1789 by the marchioness of Bute. The species was probably D. variabilis, whence by far the majority of the forms now common have originated. The flowers, at the time of the first introduction of the plant, were single, with a yellow disk and dull scarlet rays; under cultivation since the beginning of the 19th century in France and England, flowers of numerous brilliant hues have been produced. The flower has been modified also from a flat to a globular shape, and the arrangement of the florets has been rendered quite distinct in the ranunculus and anemone-like kinds. The ordinary natural height of the dahlia is about 7 or 8 ft., but one of the dwarf races grows to only 18 in. With changes in the flower, changes in the shape of the seed have been brought about by cultivation; varieties of the plant have been produced which require more moisture than others; and the period of flowering has been made considerably earlier. In 1808 dahlias were described as flowering from September to November, but some of the dwarf varieties at present grown are in full blossom in the middle of June.

DAHLIA, is a type of herbaceous plant from the Compositae family, named after Dr. Dahl, a student of Linnaeus. This genus includes about nine species native to the high sandy plains of Mexico. The dahlia was first brought to Britain from Spain in 1789 by the Marchioness of Bute. The species was likely D. variabilis, from which most of the common varieties have come. When the plant was first introduced, the flowers were single, with a yellow center and dull scarlet petals; since cultivation began in the early 19th century in France and England, flowers in many bright colors have been developed. The flower has changed from a flat shape to a round one, and the arrangement of the florets has become quite distinct in varieties resembling ranunculus and anemone. The typical height of a dahlia is about 7 or 8 feet, but some dwarf varieties only reach 18 inches. Along with changes in the flower, cultivation has also altered the shape of the seeds; different varieties have emerged that require more moisture than others, and the flowering period has been significantly shortened. In 1808, dahlias were said to bloom from September to November, but some of the dwarf varieties grown today are in full bloom by mid-June.

The large number of varieties may be classed as under the following heads: (1) Single dahlias. These have been derived from D. coccinea; they have a disk of tubular florets surrounded by the large showy ray florets. (2) Show dahlias, large and double with flowers self-coloured or pale-coloured and edged or tipped with a darker colour. (3) Fancy dahlias, resembling the show but having the florets striped or tipped with a second tint. (4) Bouquet or Pompon dahlias, with much smaller double flowers of various colours. (5) Cactus dahlias, derived from D. Juarezi, a form which has given rise to a beautiful race with pointed starry flowers. (6) Paeony-flowered dahlias, a new but not pretty race, with large floppy heads, broad florets and several disk florets in centre.

The large number of varieties can be categorized as follows: (1) Single dahlias. These are derived from D. coccinea; they feature a center of tubular florets surrounded by large, eye-catching ray florets. (2) Show dahlias, which are large and double, with flowers that are either a solid color or light-colored with darker edges or tips. (3) Fancy dahlias, which look like show dahlias but have florets that are striped or tipped with a second color. (4) Bouquet or Pompon dahlias, which have much smaller double flowers in various colors. (5) Cactus dahlias, derived from D. Juarezi, a type that has led to a beautiful variety with pointed star-like flowers. (6) Paeony-flowered dahlias, a newer but not very attractive type, featuring large floppy heads, broad florets, and several disk florets in the center.

New varieties are procured from seed, which should be sown in pots or pans towards the end of March, and placed in a hotbed or propagating pit, the young plants being pricked off into pots or boxes, and gradually hardened off for planting out in June; they will flower the same season if the summer is a genial one. The older varieties are propagated by dividing the large tuberous roots, in doing which care must be taken to leave an eye to each portion of tuber, otherwise it will not grow. Rare varieties are sometimes grafted on the roots of others. The best and most general mode of propagation is by cuttings, to obtain which, the old tubers are placed in heat in February, and as the young shoots, which rise freely from them, attain the height of 3 in., they are taken off with a heel, and planted singly in small pots filled with fine sandy soil, and plunged in a moderate heat. They root speedily, and are then transferred to larger pots in light rich soil, and their growth encouraged until the planting-out season arrives, about the middle of June north of the Thames.

New varieties are grown from seed, which should be planted in pots or pans toward the end of March and placed in a hotbed or propagating pit. The young plants are then removed to pots or boxes and gradually acclimatized for planting out in June; they will bloom in the same season if the summer is warm. The older varieties are propagated by dividing the large tuberous roots, making sure to leave an eye on each piece of tuber, or else it won’t grow. Rare varieties are sometimes grafted onto the roots of others. The best and most common method of propagation is by cuttings. To get these, the old tubers are heated in February, and as the young shoots, which grow plentifully from them, reach about 3 inches tall, they are removed with a heel and planted individually in small pots filled with fine sandy soil, and then placed in moderate heat. They root quickly and are then moved to larger pots with light, rich soil, and their growth is encouraged until it’s time to plant them out, around mid-June for areas north of the Thames.

Dahlias succeed best in an open situation, and in rich deep loam, but there is scarcely any garden soil in which they will not thrive, if it is manured. For the production of fine show flowers the ground must be deeply trenched, and well manured annually. The branches as well as the blossoms require a considerable but judicious amount of thinning; they also need shading in some cases. The plants should be protected from cold winds, and when watered the whole of the foliage should be wetted. They may stand singly like common border flowers, but have the most imposing appearance when seen in masses arranged according to their height. Florists usually devote a plot of ground to them, and plant them in lines 5 to 10 ft. apart. This is done about the beginning of June, sheltering them if necessary from late frosts by inverted pots or in some other convenient way. Old roots often throw up a multitude of stems, which render thinning necessary. As the plants increase in height, they are furnished with strong stakes, to secure them from high winds. Dahlias flower on till they are interrupted by frost in autumn. The roots are then taken up, dried, and stored in a cellar, or some other place where they may be secure from frost and moisture. Earwigs are very destructive, eating out the young buds and florets. Small flower-pots half filled with dry moss and inverted on stakes placed among the branches, form a useful trap.

Dahlias do best in an open location and in rich, deep loam, but they can thrive in almost any garden soil if it's fertilized. To produce beautiful show flowers, the ground should be deeply turned over and well-fertilized each year. Both the branches and flowers need a careful amount of thinning, and sometimes they require shading. The plants should be protected from cold winds, and when watering, make sure to wet all the foliage. They can be planted individually like regular border flowers, but look most impressive when grouped together based on their height. Florists often set aside a specific area for them and plant them in rows 5 to 10 feet apart, usually starting in early June. If necessary, shelter them from late frosts with inverted pots or another convenient method. Old roots can produce many stems, making thinning necessary. As the plants grow taller, they need strong stakes for support against strong winds. Dahlias bloom until frost interrupts them in the fall. When that happens, the roots should be dug up, dried, and stored in a cellar or another frost-free, dry place. Earwigs can be very destructive, eating the young buds and flowers. Using small flower pots half-filled with dry moss and turned upside down on stakes among the branches can create a helpful trap.


DAHLMANN, FRIEDRICH CHRISTOPH (1785-1860), German historian and politician, was born on the 13th of May 1785; he came of an old Hanseatic family of Wismar, which then belonged to Sweden. His father, who was the burgomaster of the town, intended him to study theology, but his bent was towards classical philology, and this he studied from 1802 to 1806 at the universities of Copenhagen and Halle, and again at Copenhagen. After finishing his studies, he translated some of the Greek tragic poets, and the Clouds of Aristophanes. But he 733 was also interested in modern literature and philosophy; and the troubles of the times, of which he had personal experience, aroused in him, as in so many of his contemporaries, a strong feeling of German patriotism, though throughout his life he was always proud of his connexion with Scandinavia, and Gustavus Adolphus was his particular hero. In 1809, on the news of the outbreak of war in Austria, Dahlmann, together with the poet Heinrich von Kleist, whom he had met in Dresden, went to Bohemia, and was afterwards with the Imperial army, up till the battle of Aspern, with the somewhat vague object of trying to convert the Austrian war into a German one. This hope was shattered by the defeat of Wagram. He now decided to try his fortunes in Denmark, where he had influential relations. After taking his doctor’s degree at Wittenberg (1810) he qualified at Copenhagen in 1811, with an essay on the origins of the ancient theatre, as a lecturer on ancient literature and history, on which he delivered lectures in Latin. His influential friends soon brought him further advancement. As early as 1812 he was summoned to Kiel, as successor to the historian Dietrich Hermann Hegewisch (1746-1812). This appointment was in two respects a decisive moment in his career; on the one hand it made him give his whole attention to a subject for which he was admirably suited, but to which he had so far given only a secondary interest; and on the other hand, it threw him into politics.

DAHLMANN, FRIEDRICH CHRISTOPH (1785-1860), a German historian and politician, was born on May 13, 1785. He came from an old Hanseatic family from Wismar, which was then part of Sweden. His father, the town's burgomaster, wanted him to study theology, but he was more inclined towards classical philology. He studied this subject from 1802 to 1806 at the universities of Copenhagen and Halle, and again at Copenhagen. After completing his studies, he translated some Greek tragic poets and Aristophanes' Clouds. But he was also interested in modern literature and philosophy; the troubles of the times, which he personally experienced, sparked in him, as in many of his contemporaries, a strong sense of German patriotism. However, throughout his life, he remained proud of his connection to Scandinavia, with Gustavus Adolphus being his particular hero. In 1809, upon hearing about the war outbreak in Austria, Dahlmann, along with the poet Heinrich von Kleist, whom he met in Dresden, traveled to Bohemia and later joined the Imperial army until the battle of Aspern, with the somewhat unclear goal of turning the Austrian war into a German conflict. This hope was crushed by the defeat at Wagram. He then decided to try his luck in Denmark, where he had influential connections. After earning his doctorate at Wittenberg in 1810, he qualified as a lecturer on ancient literature and history at Copenhagen in 1811 with an essay on the origins of ancient theater, delivering lectures in Latin. His influential friends quickly helped him advance further. As early as 1812, he was called to Kiel to succeed the historian Dietrich Hermann Hegewisch (1746-1812). This appointment was a pivotal moment in his career; it demanded his full attention to a subject for which he was well-suited but had previously only been secondarily interested, and it also thrust him into politics.

In 1815 he obtained, in addition to his professorate, the position of secretary to the perpetual deputation of the estates of Schleswig-Holstein. In this capacity he began, by means of memoirs or of articles in the Kieler Blätter, which he founded himself, to appear as an able and zealous champion of the half-forgotten rights of the Elbe duchies, as against Denmark, and of their close connexion with Germany. It was he upon whom the Danes afterwards threw the blame of having invented the Schleswig-Holstein question; certainly his activities form an important link in the chain of events which eventually led to the solution of 1864. So far as this interest affected himself, the chief profit lay in the fact that it deepened his conception of the state, and directed it to more practical ends. Whereas at that time mere speculation dominated both the French Liberalism of the school of Rotteck, and Karl Ludwig von Haller’s Romanticist doctrine of the Christian state, Dahlmann took as his premisses the circumstances as he found them, and evolved the new out of the old by a quiet process of development. Moreover, in the inevitable conflict with the Danish crown his upright point of view and his German patriotism were further confirmed. After his transference to Göttingen in 1829 he had the opportunity of working in the same spirit. As confidant of the duke of Cambridge, he was allowed to take a share in framing the Hanoverian constitution of 1833, which remodelled the old aristocratic government in a direction which had become inevitable since the July revolution in Paris; and when in 1837 the new king Ernest Augustus declared the constitution invalid, it was Dahlmann who inspired the famous protest of the seven professors of Göttingen. He was deprived of his position and banished, but he had the satisfaction of knowing that German national feeling received a mighty impulse from his courageous action, while public subscriptions prevented him from material cares.

In 1815, in addition to becoming a professor, he also took on the role of secretary to the permanent committee of the estates of Schleswig-Holstein. In this role, he began appearing as a skilled and passionate advocate for the neglected rights of the Elbe duchies against Denmark, as well as their close ties to Germany, through memoirs and articles in the Kieler Blätter, which he established himself. The Danes later blamed him for creating the Schleswig-Holstein question; his activities certainly played a crucial part in the series of events that eventually led to the resolution in 1864. For him personally, this interest mainly enriched his understanding of the state and directed it towards more practical goals. At that time, speculative theories dominated not only the French Liberalism of Rotteck's school but also Karl Ludwig von Haller’s Romanticist views on the Christian state. Dahlmann, however, based his ideas on the realities he encountered, developing new concepts from existing ones through a gradual process. Additionally, in the inevitable conflict with the Danish crown, his principled perspective and German patriotism became even more solidified. After moving to Göttingen in 1829, he continued to work in this spirit. As an advisor to the Duke of Cambridge, he participated in drafting the Hanoverian constitution of 1833, which transformed the outdated aristocratic government in a direction made necessary by the July Revolution in Paris. When the new king, Ernest Augustus, declared the constitution void in 1837, it was Dahlmann who inspired the notable protest from the seven professors of Göttingen. Although he was dismissed from his position and exiled, he took comfort in knowing that his brave actions significantly boosted German national sentiment, while public donations relieved him from financial worries.

After he had lived for several years in Leipzig and Jena, King Frederick William IV. appointed him in October 1842 to a professorship at Bonn. The years that followed were those of his highest celebrity. His Politik (1835) had already made him a great name as a writer; he now published his Dänische Geschichte (1840-1843), a historical work of the first rank; and this was soon followed by histories of the English and French revolutions, which, though of less scientific value, exercised a decisive influence upon public opinion by their open advocacy of the system of constitutional monarchy. As a teacher too he was much beloved. Though no orator, and in spite of a personality not particularly amiable or winning, he produced a profound impression upon young men by the pregnancy of his expression, a consistent logical method of thought based on Kant and by the manliness of his character. When the revolution of 1848 broke out, the “father of German nationality,” as the provisional government at Milan called him, found himself the centre of universal interest. Both Mecklenburg and Prussia offered him in vain the post of envoy to the diet of the confederation. Naturally, too, he was elected to the national assembly at Frankfort, and took a leading part in the constitutional committees appointed first by the diet, then by the parliament. His object was to make Germany as far as possible a united constitutional monarchy, with the exclusion of the whole of Austria, or at least, of its non-German parts. Prussia was to provide the emperor, but at the same time—and in this lay the doctrinaire weakness of the system—was to give up its separate existence, consecrated by history, in the same way as the other states. When, therefore, Frederick William IV., without showing any anxiety to bind himself by the conditions laid down at Frankfort, concluded with Denmark the seven months’ truce of Malmö (26th August 1848), Dahlmann proposed that the national parliament should refuse to recognize the truce, with the express intention of clearing up once for all the relations of the parliament with the court of Berlin. The motion was passed by a small majority (September 5th); but the members of Dahlmann’s party were just those who voted against it, and it was they who on the 17th of September reversed the previous vote and passed a resolution accepting the truce, after Dahlmann had failed to form a ministry on the basis of the resolution of the 5th, owing to his objection to the Radicals. Dahlmann afterwards described this as the decisive turning-point in the fate of the parliament. He did not, however, at once give up all hope. Though he took but little active part in parliamentary debates, he was very active on commissions and in party conferences, and it was largely owing to him that a German constitution was at last evolved, and that Frederick William IV. was elected hereditary emperor (28th of March 1849). He was accordingly one of the deputation which offered the crown to the king in Berlin. The king’s refusal was less of a surprise to him than to most of his colleagues. He counted on being able to compel recognition of the constitution by the moral pressure of the consent of the people. It was only when the attitude of the Radicals made it clear to him that this course would lead to a revolution, that he decided, after a long struggle, to retire from the national parliament (21st May). He was still, however, one of the chief promoters of the well-known conference of the imperial party at Gotha, the proceedings of which were not, however, satisfactory to him; and he took part in the sessions of the first Prussian chamber (1849-1850) and of the parliament of Erfurt (1850). But finally, convinced that for the moment all efforts towards the unity of Germany were unavailing, he retired from political life, though often pressed to stand for election, and again took up his work of teaching at Bonn. His last years were, however, saddened by illness, bereavement and continual friction with his colleagues. His death took place on the 5th of December 1860, following on an apoplectic fit. He was a man whose personality had contributed to the progress of the world, and whose teaching was to continue to exercise a far-reaching influence on the development of German affairs.

After living for several years in Leipzig and Jena, King Frederick William IV appointed him to a professorship at Bonn in October 1842. The following years marked his greatest fame. His *Politik* (1835) had already established him as a significant writer; he subsequently published his *Dänische Geschichte* (1840-1843), a top-tier historical work; this was soon followed by histories of the English and French revolutions, which, while less scientifically rigorous, significantly influenced public opinion through their clear support for constitutional monarchy. As a teacher, he was greatly admired. Although he wasn't a great orator and his personality was not particularly charming, he made a strong impression on young men with his impactful expression, a consistent logical approach based on Kant, and the strength of his character. When the revolution of 1848 erupted, he became the center of widespread interest, with both Mecklenburg and Prussia unsuccessfully offering him the position of envoy to the diet of the confederation. He was also elected to the national assembly in Frankfurt, playing a key role in the constitutional committees formed first by the diet and then by parliament. His aim was to create a united constitutional monarchy in Germany, excluding all of Austria or at least its non-German regions. Prussia was to provide the emperor but, in a doctrinaire weakness of this system, was also expected to relinquish its distinct historical existence like the other states. When Frederick William IV concluded the seven-month truce of Malmö with Denmark (August 26, 1848) without showing any concern for the conditions set in Frankfurt, Dahlmann suggested that the national parliament should refuse to recognize the truce in order to clarify its relationship with the Berlin court. The motion passed by a small majority on September 5; however, Dahlmann's party members were the ones who voted against it and later, on September 17, reversed their earlier decision, accepting the truce after Dahlmann's unsuccessful attempt to form a ministry based on the September 5 resolution due to his objections to the Radicals. Dahlmann later described this as the critical turning point in the parliament's fate. However, he did not immediately lose all hope. Although he played a minimal role in parliamentary debates, he was very active in commissions and party meetings, and it was largely due to him that a German constitution was finally developed, leading to Frederick William IV being elected hereditary emperor (March 28, 1849). He was part of the delegation that offered the crown to the king in Berlin. The king's rejection was less surprising to him than to most of his colleagues, as he believed he could force recognition of the constitution through the moral pressure of the people's approval. It was only when the Radicals' stance made it clear that this approach would lead to revolution that he decided, after much deliberation, to step down from the national parliament (May 21). Nevertheless, he remained a key supporter of the well-known conference of the imperial party at Gotha, although he was dissatisfied with the outcomes. He also participated in the sessions of the first Prussian chamber (1849-1850) and the parliament of Erfurt (1850). Ultimately, convinced that all efforts for German unity were currently futile, he withdrew from political life, despite frequent requests to run for election, and returned to teaching at Bonn. His final years were marred by illness, loss, and ongoing conflicts with his colleagues. He passed away on December 5, 1860, following a stroke. He was a man whose impact contributed to world progress, and whose teachings would continue to influence the development of German affairs.

His chief works were:—Quellenkunde der deutschen Geschichte nach der Folge der Begebenheiten geordnet (1830, 7th edition of Dahlmann-Waitz, Quellenkunde, Leipzig, 1906); Politik, auf den Grund und das Mass der gegebenen Zustände zurückgeführt (1 vol., 1835); Geschichte Dänemarks (3 vols., 1840-1843); Geschichte der englischen Revolution (1844); Geschichte der französischen Revolution (1845).

His main works were:—Sources of German History Organized by Events (1830, 7th edition of Dahlmann-Waitz, Sources, Leipzig, 1906); Politics Analyzed According to the Current Conditions (1 vol., 1835); History of Denmark (3 vols., 1840-1843); History of the English Revolution (1844); History of the French Revolution (1845).

See A. Springer, Friedrich Christoph Dahlmann (2 vols., 1870-1872); and H. v. Treitschke, Histor. und polit. Aufsätze, i. 365 et seq.

See A. Springer, Friedrich Christoph Dahlmann (2 vols., 1870-1872); and H. v. Treitschke, Histor. und polit. Aufsätze, i. 365 et seq.

(F. Lu.)

DAHLSTJERNA, GUNNO (1661-1709), Swedish poet, whose original surname was Eurelius, was born on the 7th of September 1661 in the parish of Öhr in Dalsland, where his father was rector. He entered the university of Upsala in 1677, and after gaining his degree entered the government office of land-surveying. He was sent in 1681 on professional business to Livonia, 734 then under Swedish rule. A dissertation read at Leipzig in 1687 brought him the offer of a professorial chair in the university, which he refused. Returning to Sweden he executed commissions in land-surveying directed by King Charles XI., and in 1699 he became head of the whole department. In 1702 he was ennobled under the name of Dahlstjerna. He wandered over the whole of the coast of the Baltic, Livonia, Rügen and Pomerania, preparing maps which still exist in the office of public land-surveying in Stockholm. His death, which took place in Pomerania on his forty-eighth birthday, 7th of September 1709, is said to have been hastened by the disastrous news of the battle of Poltava. Dahlstjerna’s patriotism was touching in its pathos and intensity, and during his long periods of professional exile he comforted himself by the composition of songs to his beloved Sweden. His genius was most irregular, but at his best he easily surpasses all the Swedish poets of his time. His best-known original work is Kungaskald (Stettin, 1697), an elegy on the death of Charles XI. It is written in alexandrines, arranged in ottava rima. The poem is pompous and allegorical, but there are passages full of melody and high thoughts. Dahlstjerna was a reformer in language, and it has been well said by Atterbom that in this poem “he treats the Swedish speech just as dictatorially as Charles XI. and Charles XII. treated the Swedish nation.” In 1690 was printed at Stettin his paraphrase of the Pastor Fido of Guarini. His most popular work is his Götha kämpavisa om Konungen och Herr Peder (The Goth’s Battle Song, concerning the King and Master Peter; Stockholm, 1701). The King is Charles XII. and Master Peter is the tsar of Russia. This spirited ballad lived almost until our own days on the lips of the people as a folk-song.

DAHLSTJERNA, GUNNO (1661-1709), Swedish poet, originally named Eurelius, was born on September 7, 1661, in the parish of Öhr in Dalsland, where his father was a rector. He started at the University of Uppsala in 1677, and after earning his degree, he joined the government office of land surveying. In 1681, he was sent on professional business to Livonia, 734 which was then under Swedish control. A dissertation presented at Leipzig in 1687 led to an offer for a teaching position at the university, which he turned down. After returning to Sweden, he completed land-surveying projects assigned by King Charles XI, and in 1699, he became the head of the entire department. In 1702, he was granted nobility under the name Dahlstjerna. He traveled extensively along the Baltic coast, Livonia, Rügen, and Pomerania, creating maps that are still preserved in the public land-surveying office in Stockholm. He died in Pomerania on his forty-eighth birthday, September 7, 1709, reportedly hastened by the tragic news of the battle of Poltava. Dahlstjerna’s patriotism was deeply moving, and during his long periods away from home, he found solace in writing songs about his beloved Sweden. His talent was quite variable, but when he was at his best, he surpassed all the Swedish poets of his time. His most famous original work is Kungaskald (Stettin, 1697), an elegy mourning the death of Charles XI. It is composed in alexandrines and structured in ottava rima. The poem is grand and allegorical, yet it includes passages filled with melody and profound ideas. Dahlstjerna was a linguistic reformer, and Atterbom aptly noted that in this poem, “he treats the Swedish language just as dictatorially as Charles XI. and Charles XII. treated the Swedish nation.” In 1690, his paraphrase of Guarini's Pastor Fido was published in Stettin. His most popular work is Götha kämpavisa om Konungen och Herr Peder (The Goth’s Battle Song, concerning the King and Master Peter; Stockholm, 1701). The King represents Charles XII, and Master Peter symbolizes the tsar of Russia. This vibrant ballad remained a beloved folk song among the people nearly until our own times.

The works of Dahlstjerna have been collected by P. Hanselli, in the Samlade Vitterhetsarbeten af svenska Författare från Stjernhjelm till Dalin (Upsala, 1856, &c.).

The works of Dahlstjerna have been compiled by P. Hanselli in the Samlade Vitterhetsarbeten af svenska Författare från Stjernhjelm till Dalin (Upsala, 1856, &c.).


DAHN, JULIUS SOPHUS FELIX (1834-  ), German historian, jurist and poet, was born on the 9th of February 1834 in Hamburg, where his father, Friedrich Dahn (1811-1889), was a leading actor at the city theatre. His mother, Constance Dahn, née Le Gay, was a noted actress. In 1834 the family moved to Munich, where the parents took leading rôles in the classical German drama, until they retired from the stage: the mother in 1865 and the father in 1878. Felix Dahn studied law and philosophy in Munich and Berlin from 1849 to 1853. His first works were in jurisprudence, Über die Wirkung der Klagverjährung bei Obligationen (Munich, 1855), and Studien zur Geschichte der germanischen Gottesurteile (Munich, 1857). In 1857 he became docent in German law at Munich university, and in 1862 professor-extraordinary, but in 1863 was called to Würzburg to a full professorship. In 1872 he removed to the university of Königsberg, and in 1888 settled at Breslau, becoming rector of the university in 1895. Meanwhile in addition to many legal works of high standing, he had begun the publication of that long series of histories and historical romances which has made his name a household word in Germany. The great history of the German migrations, Die Könige der Germanen, Bände i.-vi. (Munich and Würzburg, 1861-1870), Bände vii.-xi. (Leipzig, 1894-1908), was a masterly study in constitutional history as well as a literary work of high merit, which carries the narrative down to the dissolution of the Carolingian empire. In his Urgeschichte der germanischen und romanischen Völker (Berlin, 1881-1890), Dahn went a step farther back still, but here as in his Geschichte der deutschen Urzeit (Gotha, 1883-1888), a wealth of picturesque detail has been worked over and resolved into history with such imaginative insight and critical skill as to make real and present the indistinct beginnings of German society. Together with these larger works Dahn wrote many monographs and studies upon primitive German society. Many of his essays were collected in a series of six volumes entitled Bausteine (Berlin, 1879-1884). Not less important than his histories are the historical romances, the best-known of which, Ein Kampf um Rom, in four volumes (Leipzig, 1876), which has gone through many later editions, was also the first of the series. Others are Odhins Trost (Leipzig, 1880); Die Kreuzfahrer (Leipzig, 1884); Odhins Rache (Leipzig, 1891); Julian der Abtrünnige (Leipzig, 1894), and one of the most popular, Bis zum Tode getreu (Leipzig, 1887). The list is too long to be given in full, yet almost all are well-known. Parallel with this great production of learned and imaginative works, Dahn published some twenty small volumes of poetry. The most notable of these are the epics of the early German period. His wife Therese, née Freiin von Droste-Hülshoff, was joint-author with him of Walhall, Germanische Götter und Heldensagen (Leipzig, 1898).

DAHN, JULIUS SOPHUS FELIX (1834-  ), German historian, lawyer, and poet, was born on February 9, 1834, in Hamburg, where his father, Friedrich Dahn (1811-1889), was a prominent actor at the city theater. His mother, Constance Dahn, née Le Gay, was a well-known actress. In 1834, the family moved to Munich, where the parents took leading roles in classical German drama until their retirement from the stage: the mother in 1865 and the father in 1878. Felix Dahn studied law and philosophy in Munich and Berlin from 1849 to 1853. His first works focused on jurisprudence, Über die Wirkung der Klagverjährung bei Obligationen (Munich, 1855), and Studien zur Geschichte der germanischen Gottesurteile (Munich, 1857). In 1857, he became a lecturer in German law at Munich university, and in 1862, a full professor, but in 1863 he was called to Würzburg for a full professorship. In 1872, he moved to the University of Königsberg, and in 1888 he settled in Breslau, becoming rector of the university in 1895. Alongside many influential legal works, he began publishing a long series of histories and historical romances that made his name popular in Germany. His significant work on the history of the German migrations, Die Könige der Germanen, Volumes i.-vi. (Munich and Würzburg, 1861-1870), Volumes vii.-xi. (Leipzig, 1894-1908), is a masterful study in constitutional history and a high-quality literary work that covers the narrative up to the fall of the Carolingian empire. In his Urgeschichte der germanischen und romanischen Völker (Berlin, 1881-1890), Dahn explored even further back in history, and in his Geschichte der deutschen Urzeit (Gotha, 1883-1888), he provided a wealth of vivid detail that was transformed into historical narrative with such creative insight and critical skill that it brought to life the unclear beginnings of German society. Along with these larger works, Dahn wrote many monographs and studies on primitive German society. Many of his essays were compiled into a six-volume series titled Bausteine (Berlin, 1879-1884). Equally important as his historical works are the historical romances, the most famous being Ein Kampf um Rom, in four volumes (Leipzig, 1876), which has seen many later editions and was the first in the series. Other notable titles include Odhins Trost (Leipzig, 1880); Die Kreuzfahrer (Leipzig, 1884); Odhins Rache (Leipzig, 1891); Julian der Abtrünnige (Leipzig, 1894), and one of the most popular, Bis zum Tode getreu (Leipzig, 1887). The complete list is too lengthy to provide here, but nearly all are well-known. Along with this extensive collection of scholarly and imaginative works, Dahn published about twenty small volumes of poetry, with the most notable being the epics from the early German period. His wife Therese, née Freiin von Droste-Hülshoff, co-authored Walhall, Germanische Götter und Heldensagen (Leipzig, 1898) with him.

A collected edition of his works of fiction, both in prose and verse, has reached twenty-one volumes (Leipzig, 1898), and a new edition was published in 1901. Dahn also published four volumes of memoirs, Erinnerungen (Leipzig, 1890-1895).

A collected edition of his fiction works, both prose and poetry, has been released in twenty-one volumes (Leipzig, 1898), with a new edition published in 1901. Dahn also released four volumes of memoirs, Erinnerungen (Leipzig, 1890-1895).


DAHOMEY (Fr. Dahomé), a country of West Africa, formerly an independent kingdom, now a French colony. Dahomey is bounded S. by the Gulf of Guinea, E. by Nigeria (British), N. and N.W. by the French possessions on the middle Niger, and W. by the German colony of Togoland. The French colony extends far north of the limits of the ancient kingdom of the same name. With a coast-line of only 75 m. (1° 38′ E. to 2° 46′ 55″ E.), the area of the colony is about 40,000 sq. m., and the population over 1,000,000. As far as 9° N. the width of the colony is no greater than the coast-line. From this point, the colony broadens out both eastward and westward, attaining a maximum width of 200 m. It includes the western part of Borgu (q.v.), and reaches the Niger at a spot a little above Illo. Its greatest length N. to S. is 430 m.

DAHOMEY (Fr. Dahomé), a country in West Africa, was once an independent kingdom and is now a French colony. Dahomey is bordered to the south by the Gulf of Guinea, to the east by Nigeria (British), to the north and northwest by French territories along the middle Niger, and to the west by the German colony of Togoland. The French colony stretches far north beyond the borders of the ancient kingdom of the same name. With a coastline of only 75 miles (1° 38′ E. to 2° 46′ 55″ E.), the area of the colony is roughly 40,000 square miles, and the population exceeds 1,000,000. Up to 9° N., the width of the colony is no wider than the coastline. Beyond this point, the colony expands both east and west, reaching a maximum width of 200 miles. It includes the western part of Borgu (q.v.) and extends to the Niger just above Illo. Its greatest length from north to south is 430 miles.

Physical Features.—The littoral, part of the old Slave Coast (see Guinea,), is very low, sandy and obstructed by a bar. Behind the seashore is a line of lagoons, where small steamers can ply; east to west they are those of Porto Novo (or Lake Nokue), Whydah and Grand Popo. The Weme (300 m. long), known in its upper course as the Ofe, the most important river running south, drains the colony from the Bariba country to Porto Novo, entering the lagoon so named. The Zu is a western affluent of the Weme. Farther west is the Kuffu (150 m. long), which, before entering the Whydah lagoon, broadens out into a lake or lagoon called Ahémé, 20 m. long by 5 m. broad. The Makru and Kergigoto, each of which has various affluents, flow north-east to the Niger, which in the part of its course forming the north-east frontier of the colony is only navigable for small vessels and that with great difficulty (see Niger).

Physical Features.—The coastline, part of the old Slave Coast (see Guinea,), is very low, sandy, and blocked by a sandbar. Behind the beach, there’s a line of lagoons where small boats can operate; from east to west, these include Porto Novo (or Lake Nokue), Whydah, and Grand Popo. The Weme River (300 m. long), known upstream as the Ofe, is the most significant river flowing south, draining the area from the Bariba region to Porto Novo, where it enters the lagoon of the same name. The Zu is a western tributary of the Weme. Further west, there’s the Kuffu River (150 m. long), which expands into a lake or lagoon called Ahémé (20 m. long by 5 m. wide) before entering the Whydah lagoon. The Makru and Kergigoto Rivers, each with various tributaries, flow northeast toward the Niger, which in this part of its course that forms the northeast border of the colony is only navigable for small vessels and that with great difficulty (see Niger).

For some 50 m. inland the country is flat, and, after the first mile or two of sandy waste is passed, covered with dense vegetation. At this distance (50 m.) from the coast is a great swamp known as the Lama Marsh. It extends east to west some 25 m. and north to south 6 to 9 m. North of the swamp the land rises by regular stages to about 1650 ft., the high plateau falling again to the basin of the Niger. In the north-west a range of hills known as the Atacora forms a watershed between the basins of the Weme, the Niger and the Volta. A large part of the interior consists of undulating country, rather barren, with occasional patches of forest. The forests contain the baobab, the coco-nut palm and the oil palm. The fauna resembles that of other parts of the West Coast, but the larger wild animals, such as the elephant and hippopotamus, are rare. The lion is found in the regions bordering the Niger. Some kinds of antelopes are common; the buffalo has disappeared.

About 50 miles inland, the land is flat, and after the first mile or so of sandy terrain, it's covered with thick vegetation. At this distance (50 miles) from the coast, there's a large swamp called the Lama Marsh. It stretches about 25 miles from east to west and 6 to 9 miles from north to south. North of the swamp, the land gradually rises to about 1650 feet, with the high plateau dropping again into the Niger basin. In the northwest, a mountain range called the Atacora acts as a watershed between the basins of the Weme, Niger, and Volta rivers. Much of the interior is made up of rolling hills that are somewhat barren, with occasional forest patches. These forests are home to baobab trees, coconut palms, and oil palms. The wildlife is similar to other areas along the West Coast, but larger wild animals like elephants and hippos are uncommon. Lions can be found in the regions near the Niger. Some species of antelopes are common, while buffalo have become extinct.

Climate.—The climate of the coast regions is very hot and moist. Four seasons are well marked: the harmattan or long dry season, from the 1st December to the 15th March; the season of the great rains, from the 15th March to the 15th July; the short dry season, from the 15th July to the 15th September; and the “little rains,” from the 15th September to the 1st December. Near the sea the average temperature is about 80° F. The harmattan prevails for several days in succession, and alternates with winds from the south and south-west. During its continuance the thermometer falls about 10°, there is not the slightest moisture in the atmosphere, vegetation dries up or droops, the skin parches and peels, and all woodwork is liable to warp and crack with a loud report. Tornadoes occur occasionally. During nine months of the year the climate is tempered by a sea-breeze, which is felt as far inland as Abomey 735 (60 m.). It generally begins in the morning, and in the summer it often increases to a stiff gale at sundown. In the interior there are but two seasons: the dry season (November to May) and the rainy season (June to October). The rains are more scanty and diminish considerably in the northern regions.

Climate.—The climate of the coastal regions is very hot and humid. There are four distinct seasons: the harmattan or long dry season, from December 1 to March 15; the season of heavy rains, from March 15 to July 15; the short dry season, from July 15 to September 15; and the “little rains,” from September 15 to December 1. Near the coast, the average temperature is around 80°F. The harmattan lasts for several days at a time and alternates with winds from the south and southwest. During this period, temperatures drop by about 10°, and the air becomes completely dry; vegetation wilts or droops, skin dries and peels, and wood can warp and crack loudly. Tornadoes occasionally occur. For nine months of the year, the climate is moderated by a sea breeze that reaches as far inland as Abomey 735 (60 miles). It usually starts in the morning, and in the summer, it can pick up to a strong gale by sundown. In the interior, there are only two seasons: the dry season (November to May) and the rainy season (June to October). The rains are lighter and significantly decrease in the northern areas.

Inhabitants.—The inhabitants of the coast region are of pure negro stock. The Dahomeyans (Dahomi), who inhabit the central part of the colony, form one of eighteen closely-allied clans occupying the country between the Volta and Porto Novo, and from their common tongue known as the Ewe-speaking tribes. In their own tongue Dahomeyans are called Fon or Fawin. They are tall and well-formed, proud, reserved in demeanour, polite in their intercourse with strangers, war-like and keen traders. The Mina, who occupy the district of the Popos, are noted for their skill as surf-men, which has gained for them the title of the Krumen of Dahomey. Porto Novo is inhabited by a tribe called Nago, which has an admixture of Yoruba blood and speaks a Yoruba dialect. The Nago are a peaceful tribe and even keener traders than the Dahomi. In Whydah and other coast towns are many mulattos, speaking Portuguese and bearing high-sounding Portuguese names. In the north the inhabitants—Mahi, Bariba, Gurmai,—are also of Negro stock, but scarcely so civilized as the coast tribes. Settled among them are communities of Fula and Hausas. There are many converts to Islam in the northern districts, but the Mahi and Dahomeyans proper are nearly all fetish worshippers.

Inhabitants.—The people living along the coast are of pure African descent. The Dahomeyans (Dahomi), who live in the central part of the colony, are one of eighteen closely-related clans that occupy the area between the Volta River and Porto Novo, and they share a common language known as the Ewe-speaking tribes. In their own language, Dahomeyans are called Fon or Fawin. They are tall and well-built, proud, reserved in manner, polite when interacting with outsiders, warlike, and sharp traders. The Mina, who live in the Popos region, are known for their skills as surfmen, which has earned them the nickname of the Krumen of Dahomey. Porto Novo is home to a tribe called Nago, which has some Yoruba heritage and speaks a dialect of Yoruba. The Nago are a peaceful group and even more eager traders than the Dahomi. In Whydah and other coastal towns, there are many mulattos who speak Portuguese and have impressive Portuguese names. In the north, the inhabitants—Mahi, Bariba, Gurmai—are also of African descent, but are not as developed as the coastal tribes. Among them are communities of Fula and Hausas. There are many converts to Islam in the northern regions, but the Mahi and true Dahomeyans predominantly practice fetish worship.

Chief Towns.—The chief port and the seat of government is Kotonu, the starting-point of a railway to the Niger. An iron pier, which extends well beyond the surf, affords facilities for shipping. Kotonu was originally a small village which served as the seaport of Porto Novo and was burnt to the ground in 1890. It has consequently the advantage of being a town laid out by Europeans on a definite plan. Situated on the beach between the sea and the lagoon of Porto Novo, the soil consists of heavy sand. Good hard roads have been made. Owing to an almost continuous, cool, westerly sea-breeze, Kotonu is, in comparison with the other coast towns, decidedly healthy for white men. Porto Novo (pop. about 50,000), the former French headquarters and chief business centre, is on the northern side of the lagoon of the same name and 20 m. north-east of Kotonu by water. The town has had many names, and that by which it is known to Europeans was given by the Portuguese in the 17th century. It contains numerous churches and mosques, public buildings and merchants’ residences. Whydah, 23 m. west of Kotonu, is an old and formerly thickly-populated town. Its population is now about 15,000. It is built on the north bank of the coast lagoon about 2 m. from the sea. There is no harbour at the beach, and landing is effected in boats made expressly to pass through the surf, here particularly heavy. Whydah, during the period of the slave-trade, was divided into five quarters: the English, French, Portuguese, Brazilian and native. The three first quarters once had formidable forts, of which the French fort alone survives. In consequence of the thousands of orange and citron trees which adorn it, Whydah is called “the garden of Dahomey.” West of Whydah, on the coast and near the frontier of Togoland, is the trading town of Grand Popo. Inland in Dahomey proper are Abomey (q.v.), the ancient capital, Allada, Kana (formerly the country residence and burial-place of the kings of Dahomey) and Dogba. In the hinterland are Carnotville (a town of French creation), Nikki and Paraku, Borgu towns, and Garu, on the right bank of the Niger near the British frontier, the terminus of the railway from the coast.

Chief Towns.—The main port and government center is Kotonu, the starting point of a railway to the Niger River. An iron pier extends well beyond the surf, providing facilities for shipping. Kotonu began as a small village that served as the seaport for Porto Novo and was burned down in 1890. As a result, it has the advantage of being a town developed by Europeans with a clear layout. Located on the beach between the sea and the lagoon of Porto Novo, the soil is made up of heavy sand. There are good hard roads. Thanks to a nearly constant cool westerly sea breeze, Kotonu is relatively healthy for white people compared to other coastal towns. Porto Novo (population about 50,000), which used to be the French headquarters and the main business hub, is on the northern side of the lagoon with the same name and is 20 miles northeast of Kotonu by water. This town has had many names, and the name known to Europeans was given by the Portuguese in the 17th century. It features numerous churches, mosques, public buildings, and merchants’ homes. Whydah, located 23 miles west of Kotonu, is an old town that used to be densely populated. Its current population is about 15,000. It is built on the north bank of the coastal lagoon about 2 miles from the sea. There is no harbor at the beach, so landing is done in boats specially designed to navigate the particularly heavy surf. During the slave trade, Whydah was divided into five quarters: English, French, Portuguese, Brazilian, and native. The first three quarters once had impressive forts, but only the French fort remains today. Because of the thousands of orange and citron trees that beautify it, Whydah is referred to as “the garden of Dahomey.” West of Whydah, along the coast near the Togoland border, is the trading town of Grand Popo. Inland in Dahomey proper are Abomey (q.v.), the ancient capital, Allada, Kana (formerly the rural residence and burial site of the Dahomey kings), and Dogba. In the hinterland are Carnotville (a town established by the French), Nikki and Paraku, Borgu towns, and Garu, located on the right bank of the Niger near the British border, which is the end point of the railway from the coast.

Agriculture and Trade.—The agriculture, trade and commerce of Dahomey proper are essentially different from that of the hinterland (Haut Dahomé). The soil of Dahomey proper is naturally fertile and is capable of being highly cultivated. It consists of a rich clay of a deep red colour. Finely-powdered quartz and yellow mica are met with, denoting the deposit of disintegrated granite from the interior. The principal product is palm-oil, which is made in large quantities throughout the country. The district of Toffo is particularly noted for its oil-palm orchards. Palm-wine is also made, but the manufacture is discouraged as the process destroys the tree. Next to palm-oil the principal vegetable products are maize, guinea-corn, cassava, yams, sweet potatoes, plantains, coco-nuts, oranges, limes and the African apple, which grows almost wild. The country also produces ground-nuts, kola-nuts, pine-apples, guavas, spices of all kinds, ginger, okros (Hibiscus), sugar-cane, onions, tomatoes and papaws. Plantations of rubber trees and vines have been made. Cattle, sheep, goats and fowls are scarce. There is a large fishing industry in the lagoons. Round the villages, and here and there in the forest, clearings are met with, cultivated in places, but agriculture is in a backward condition. In the grassy uplands of the interior cattle and horses thrive, and cotton of a fairly good quality is grown by the inhabitants for their own use. The prosperity of the country depends chiefly on the export of palm-oil and palm-kernels. Copra, kola-nuts, rubber and dried fish are also exported, the fish going to Lagos. The adulteration of the palm-kernels by the natives, which became a serious menace to trade, was partially checked (1900-1903) by measures taken to ensure the inspection of the kernels before shipment. Trade is mainly with Germany and Great Britain, a large proportion of the cargo passing through the British port of Lagos. Only some 25% of the commerce is with France. Cotton goods (chiefly from Great Britain), machinery and metals, alcohol (from Germany) and tobacco are the chief imports. The volume of trade, which had increased from £701,000 in 1898 to £1,230,000 in 1902, declined in 1903 to £826,000 in consequence of the failure of rain, this causing a decrease in the production of palm-oil and kernels. In 1904 the total rose to £873,399. In 1905 the figure was £734,667, and in 1907 £853,051. By the Anglo-French Convention of 1898 the imposition of differential duties on goods of British origin was forbidden for a period of thirty years from that date.

Agriculture and Trade.—The agriculture, trade, and commerce of Dahomey are quite different from those in the surrounding areas (Haut Dahomé). The soil in Dahomey is naturally fertile and well-suited for intensive cultivation. It is made up of a rich, deep red clay. You'll also find finely-powdered quartz and yellow mica, indicating deposits of disintegrated granite from the interior. The main product is palm oil, which is produced in large quantities across the country. The Toffo region is especially known for its palm oil orchards. While palm wine is also produced, its manufacture is discouraged since it harms the trees. After palm oil, the main vegetable products include maize, guinea corn, cassava, yams, sweet potatoes, plantains, coconuts, oranges, limes, and the African apple, which grows almost wild. The country also produces groundnuts, kola nuts, pineapples, guavas, a variety of spices, ginger, okra (Hibiscus), sugarcane, onions, tomatoes, and papayas. There are plantations of rubber trees and vines established as well. Livestock such as cattle, sheep, goats, and poultry are not very common. The fishing industry is significant in the lagoons. Around the villages and sporadically in the forest, there are clearings that are cultivated to some extent, but agriculture remains underdeveloped. In the grassy uplands of the interior, cattle and horses thrive, and residents grow a decent quality of cotton for personal use. The country’s prosperity largely relies on exporting palm oil and palm kernels. Copra, kola nuts, rubber, and dried fish are also exported, with the fish going to Lagos. The tampering with palm kernels by locals, which became a major issue for trade, was somewhat reduced (1900-1903) through efforts to ensure inspection of the kernels before shipment. Trade is primarily with Germany and Great Britain, with a considerable portion of the cargo passing through the British port of Lagos. About 25% of the commerce is with France. The main imports include cotton goods (mostly from Great Britain), machinery and metals, alcohol (from Germany), and tobacco. The trade volume increased from £701,000 in 1898 to £1,230,000 in 1902, but fell to £826,000 in 1903 due to a lack of rain, which reduced the production of palm oil and kernels. In 1904, the total rose to £873,399, was £734,667 in 1905, and reached £853,051 in 1907. According to the Anglo-French Convention of 1898, imposing differential duties on goods of British origin was prohibited for thirty years from that date.

Communications.—The Dahomey railway from Kotonu to the Niger is of metre gauge (3.28 ft.). Work was begun in 1900, and in 1902 the main line was completed to Toffo, a distance of 55 m. Some difficulty was then encountered in crossing the Lama Marsh, but by the end of 1905 the railway had been carried through Abomey to Pauignan, 120 m. from Kotonu. In 1907 the rails had reached Paraku, 150 m. farther north. A branch railway from the main line serves the western part of the colony. It goes via Whydah to Segborué on Lake Ahémé. Besides the railways, tramway lines exist in various parts of Dahomey. One, 28 m. long, runs from Porto Novo through the market-town of Adjara to Sakete, close to the British frontier in the direction of Lagos. This line serves a belt of country rich in oil-palms. Kotonu is a regular port of call for steamers from Europe to the West Coast, and there is also regular steamship communication along the lagoons between Porto Novo and Lagos. There is a steamboat service between Porto Novo and Kotonu. A telegraph line connects Kotonu with Abomey, the Niger and Senegal.

Communications.—The Dahomey railway from Kotonu to the Niger has a meter gauge (3.28 ft.). Construction started in 1900, and by 1902, the main line was completed to Toffo, a distance of 55 miles. Some challenges were faced in crossing the Lama Marsh, but by the end of 1905, the railway extended through Abomey to Pauignan, 120 miles from Kotonu. By 1907, the tracks had reached Paraku, another 150 miles north. A branch line runs from the main line to serve the western part of the colony, going through Whydah to Segborué on Lake Ahémé. In addition to the railways, there are tram lines in various areas of Dahomey. One line, 28 miles long, runs from Porto Novo through the market town of Adjara to Sakete, near the British border towards Lagos. This line serves an area abundant in oil palms. Kotonu is a regular stop for steamers traveling from Europe to the West Coast, and there is also consistent steamship communication along the lagoons between Porto Novo and Lagos. Additionally, there is a steamboat service between Porto Novo and Kotonu. A telegraph line connects Kotonu with Abomey, the Niger, and Senegal.

Administration.—The colony is administered by a lieutenant-governor, assisted by a council composed of official and unofficial members. The colony is divided into territories annexed, territories protected, and “territories of political action,” but for administrative purposes the division is into “circles” or provinces. Over each circle is an administrator with extensive powers. Except in the annexed territories the native states are maintained under French supervision, and native laws and customs, as far as possible, retained. Natives, however, may place themselves under the jurisdiction of the French law. Such natives are known as “Assimilés.” In general the administrative system is the same as that for all the colonies of French West Africa (q.v.). The chief source of revenue is the customs, while the capitation tax contributes most to the local budget.

Administration.—The colony is run by a lieutenant-governor, who is supported by a council made up of both official and unofficial members. The colony is categorized into annexed territories, protected territories, and “territories of political action,” but for administrative purposes, it’s divided into “circles” or provinces. Each circle has an administrator with significant powers. Except for the annexed territories, native states operate under French supervision, maintaining native laws and customs as much as possible. Natives can, however, choose to be governed by French law. These natives are referred to as “Assimilés.” Overall, the administrative system is similar to that of all the colonies in French West Africa (q.v.). The main source of revenue comes from customs, while the capitation tax primarily funds the local budget.

History.—The kingdom of Dahomey, like those of Benin and Ashanti, is an instance of a purely negro and pagan state, endowed with a highly organized government, and possessing a certain amount of indigenous civilization and culture. Its history begins about the commencement of the 17th century. At that period the country now known as Dahomey was included in the extensive kingdom of Allada or Ardrah, of which the capital was the present town of Allada, on the road from Whydah 736 to Abomey. Allada became dismembered on the death of a reigning sovereign, and three separate kingdoms were constituted under his three sons. One state was formed by one brother round the old capital of Allada, and retained the name of Allada or Ardrah; another brother migrated to the east and formed a state known under the name of Porto Novo; while the third brother, Takudonu, travelled northwards, and after some vicissitudes established the kingdom of Dahomey. The word Dahomey means “in Danh’s belly,” and is explained by the following legend which, says Sir Richard Burton, “is known (1864) to everybody in the kingdom.” Takudonu having settled in a town called Uhwawe encroached on the land of a neighbouring chief named Danh (the snake). Takudonu wearied Danh by perpetual demands for land, and the chief one day exclaimed in anger “soon thou wilt build in my belly.” So it came to pass. Takudonu slew Danh and over his grave built himself a palace which was called Dahomey, a name thenceforth adopted by the new king’s followers. About 1724-1728 Dahomey, having become a powerful state, invaded and conquered successively Allada and Whydah. The Whydahs made several attempts to recover their freedom, but without success; while on the other hand the Dahomeyans failed in all their expeditions against Grand Popo, a town founded by refugee Whydahs on a lagoon to the west. It is related that the repulses they met with in that quarter led to the order that no Dahomeyan warrior was to enter a canoe. Porto Novo at the beginning of the 19th century became tributary to Dahomey.

History.—The kingdom of Dahomey, like those of Benin and Ashanti, is an example of a purely African and pagan state, with a well-organized government and a certain level of indigenous civilization and culture. Its history starts around the early 17th century. At that time, the area now known as Dahomey was part of the large kingdom of Allada or Ardrah, whose capital was the current town of Allada, located on the road from Whydah to Abomey. Allada was fragmented after the death of a reigning ruler, leading to the creation of three separate kingdoms ruled by his three sons. One brother established a state around the old capital of Allada, keeping the name Allada or Ardrah; another brother moved east and created a state known as Porto Novo; while the third brother, Takudonu, journeyed north and eventually established the kingdom of Dahomey after facing various challenges. The name Dahomey means “in Danh’s belly,” which is explained by a legend noted by Sir Richard Burton, “well known (1864) to everyone in the kingdom.” After settling in a town called Uhwawe, Takudonu encroached on the territory of a neighboring chief named Danh (the snake). Takudonu constantly pressured Danh for land, and one day, in frustration, Danh exclaimed, “soon you will build in my belly.” Eventually, this came true. Takudonu killed Danh and built a palace over his grave, which was named Dahomey, a title that his followers began to use from then on. Around 1724-1728, Dahomey grew into a powerful state, launching invasions that conquered Allada and Whydah in succession. The Whydahs made several attempts to regain their freedom but were unsuccessful; meanwhile, the Dahomeyans were unsuccessful in all their campaigns against Grand Popo, a town founded by fleeing Whydahs on a lagoon to the west. It is said that the defeats they suffered there led to a decree that no Dahomeyan warrior could enter a canoe. At the beginning of the 19th century, Porto Novo became a tributary state to Dahomey.

Such was the state of affairs at the accession of King Gezo about the year 1818. This monarch, who reigned forty years, raised the power of Dahomey to its highest pitch, extending greatly the border of his kingdom to the north. He boasted of having first organized the Amazons, a force of women to whom he attributed his successes. The Amazons, however, were state soldiery long before Gezo’s reign, and what that monarch really did was to reorganize and strengthen the force.

Such was the situation when King Gezo came to power around 1818. This king, who ruled for forty years, took Dahomey to its peak power and expanded his kingdom's borders significantly to the north. He claimed to be the one who first organized the Amazons, a team of female warriors whom he credited for his victories. However, the Amazons had been part of the military long before Gezo’s time, and what he actually did was reorganize and enhance the force.

In 1851 Gezo attacked Abeokuta in the Yoruba country and the centre of the Egba power, but was beaten back. In the same year the king signed a commercial treaty with France, in which Gezo also undertook to preserve “the integrity of the territory belonging to the French fort” at Whydah. The fort referred to was one built in the 17th century, and in 1842 made over to a French mercantile house. England, Portugal and Brazil also had “forts” at Whydah—all in a ruinous condition and ungarrisoned. But when in 1852 England, to prevent the slave-trade, blockaded the Dahomeyan coast, energetic protests were made by Portugal and France, based on the existence of these “forts.” In 1858 Gezo died. He had greatly reduced the custom of human sacrifice, and left instructions that after his death there was to be no general sacrifice of the palace women.

In 1851, Gezo attacked Abeokuta in Yoruba territory, the heart of Egba power, but was pushed back. That same year, the king signed a commercial treaty with France, in which Gezo also promised to uphold “the integrity of the territory belonging to the French fort” at Whydah. The fort mentioned was built in the 17th century and was handed over to a French trading company in 1842. England, Portugal, and Brazil also had “forts” at Whydah—all in a dilapidated state and without garrisons. However, when England blockaded the Dahomeyan coast in 1852 to stop the slave trade, Portugal and France made strong protests, citing the existence of these “forts.” Gezo died in 1858. He had significantly decreased the practice of human sacrifice and left instructions that there should be no mass sacrifice of palace women after his death.

Gezo was succeeded by his son Gléglé (or Gélélé), whose attacks on neighbouring states, persecution of native Christians, and encouragement of the slave-trade involved him in difficulties with Great Britain and with France. It was, said Earl Russell, foreign secretary, to check “the aggressive spirit of the king of Dahomey” that England in 1861 annexed the island of Lagos. Nevertheless in the following year Gléglé captured Ishagga and in 1864 unsuccessfully attacked Abeokuta, both towns in the Lagos hinterland. In 1863 Commander Wilmot, R.N., and in 1864 Sir Richard Burton (the explorer and orientalist) were sent on missions to the king, but their efforts to induce the Dahomeyans to give up human sacrifices, slave-trading, &c. met with no success. In 1863, however, a step was taken by France which was the counterpart of the British annexation of Lagos. In that year the kingdom of Porto Novo accepted a French protectorate, and an Anglo-French agreement of 1864 fixed its boundaries. This protectorate was soon afterwards abandoned by Napoleon III., but was re-established in 1882. At this period the rivalry of European powers for possessions in Africa was becoming acute, and German agents appeared on the Dahomeyan coast. However, by an arrangement concluded in 1885, the German protectorate in Guinea was confined to Togo, save for the town of Little Popo at the western end of the lagoon of Grand Popo. In January 1886 Portugal—in virtue of her ancient rights at Whydah—announced that she had assumed a protectorate over the Dahomeyan coast, but she was induced by France to withdraw her protectorate in December 1887. Finally, the last international difficulty in the way of France was removed by the Anglo-French agreement of 1889, whereby Kotonu was surrendered by Great Britain. France claimed rights at Kotonu in virtue of treaties concluded with Gléglé in 1868 and 1878, but the chiefs of the town had placed themselves under the protection of the British at Lagos.

Gezo was succeeded by his son Gléglé (or Gélélé), whose attacks on neighboring states, persecution of local Christians, and support for the slave trade led to issues with Great Britain and France. Earl Russell, the foreign secretary, stated that England annexed the island of Lagos in 1861 to curb “the aggressive spirit of the king of Dahomey.” Despite this, the following year Gléglé captured Ishagga, and in 1864 he unsuccessfully attacked Abeokuta, both towns in the Lagos area. In 1863, Commander Wilmot, R.N., and in 1864, Sir Richard Burton (the explorer and orientalist) were sent on missions to the king, but their attempts to persuade the Dahomeyans to abandon human sacrifices and the slave trade were unsuccessful. However, in 1863, France took a step equivalent to the British annexation of Lagos. That year, the kingdom of Porto Novo accepted a French protectorate, and an Anglo-French agreement in 1864 established its boundaries. This protectorate was soon abandoned by Napoleon III, but it was re-established in 1882. During this time, the competition among European powers for territories in Africa was intensifying, and German agents began to show up on the Dahomeyan coast. However, under an agreement reached in 1885, the German protectorate in Guinea was limited to Togo, except for the town of Little Popo at the western end of the Grand Popo lagoon. In January 1886, Portugal, based on her long-standing rights in Whydah, announced that she had taken control of the Dahomeyan coast, but France persuaded her to withdraw this protectorate in December 1887. Finally, the last international obstacle for France was resolved by the Anglo-French agreement of 1889, when Kotonu was relinquished by Great Britain. France claimed rights in Kotonu based on treaties made with Gléglé in 1868 and 1878, but the local chiefs had already placed themselves under British protection at Lagos.

With the arrangements between the European powers the Dahomeyans had little to do, and in 1889, the year in which the Anglo-French agreement was signed, trouble arose between Gléglé and the French. The Dahomeyans were the more confident, as through German and other merchants at Whydah they were well supplied with modern arms and ammunition. Gléglé claimed the right to collect the customs at Kotonu, and to depose the king of Porto Novo, and proceeded to raid the territory of that potentate (his brother). A French mission sent to Abomey failed to come to an agreement with the Dahomeyans, who attributed the misunderstandings to the fact that there was no longer a king in France! Gléglé died on the 28th of December 1889, two days after the French mission had left his capital. He was succeeded by his son Behanzin. A French force was landed at Kotonu, and severe fighting followed in which the Amazons played a conspicuous part. In October 1890 a treaty was signed which secured to France Porto Novo and Kotonu, and to the king of Dahomey an annual pension of £800. It was unlikely that peace on such terms would prove lasting, and Behanzin’s slave-raiding expeditions led in 1892 to a new war with France. General A. A. Dodds was placed in command of a strong force of Europeans and Senegalese, and after a sharp campaign during September and October completely defeated the Dahomeyan troops. Behanzin set fire to Abomey (entered by the French troops on the 17th of November) and fled north. Pursued by the enemy, abandoned by his people, he surrendered unconditionally on the 25th of January 1894, and was deported to Martinique, being transferred in 1906 to Algeria, where he died on the 10th of December of the same year.

With the agreements made between the European powers, the Dahomeyans had little involvement, and in 1889, the year the Anglo-French agreement was signed, conflict arose between Gléglé and the French. The Dahomeyans felt more assured since, through German and

Thus ended the independent existence of Dahomey. The French divided the kingdom in two—Abomey and Allada—placing on the throne of Abomey a brother of the exiled monarch. Chief among the causes which led to the collapse of the Dahomeyan kingdom was the system which devoted the flower of its womanhood to the profession of arms.

Thus ended the independent existence of Dahomey. The French split the kingdom into two—Abomey and Allada—putting a brother of the exiled monarch on the throne of Abomey. One of the main reasons for the downfall of the Dahomeyan kingdom was the system that dedicated its finest women to a life of military service.

Whydah and the adjacent territory was annexed to France by General Dodds on the 3rd of December 1892, and the rest of Dahomey placed under a French protectorate at the same time. The prince who had been made king of Abomey was found intriguing against the French, and in 1900 was exiled by them to the Congo, and with him disappeared the last vestige of Dahomeyan sovereignty.

Whydah and the surrounding area were annexed to France by General Dodds on December 3, 1892, while the rest of Dahomey fell under a French protectorate at the same time. The prince who had been made king of Abomey was found to be conspiring against the French and was exiled to the Congo in 1900, marking the end of Dahomeyan sovereignty.

Dahomey conquered, the French at once set to work to secure as much of the hinterland as possible. On the north they penetrated to the Niger, on the east they entered Borgu (a country claimed by the Royal Niger Company for Great Britain), on the west they overlapped the territory claimed by Germany as the hinterland of Togo. The struggle with Great Britain and Germany for supremacy in this region forms one of the most interesting chapters in the story of the partition of Africa. In the result France succeeded in securing a junction between Dahomey and her other possessions in West Africa, but failed to secure any part of the Niger navigable from the sea (see Africa: History, and Nigeria). A Franco-German convention of 1897 settled the boundary on the west, and the Anglo-French convention of the 14th of June 1898 defined the frontier on the east. In 1899, on the disintegration of the French Sudan, the districts of Fada N’Gurma and Say, lying north of Borgu, were added to Dahomey, but in 1907 they were transferred to Upper Senegal-Niger, with which colony they are closely connected both geographically and ethnographically. From 1894 onward the French devoted great 737 attention to the development of the material resources of the country.

Dahomey conquered, the French immediately started working to secure as much of the inland area as possible. To the north, they reached the Niger River; to the east, they entered Borgu (a region claimed by the Royal Niger Company for Great Britain); and to the west, they overlapped the territory claimed by Germany as the hinterland of Togo. The competition with Great Britain and Germany for dominance in this area is one of the most fascinating parts of the story of the partition of Africa. As a result, France managed to connect Dahomey with its other territories in West Africa, but it failed to gain any part of the Niger that could be navigated from the sea (see Africa: History, and Nigeria). A Franco-German agreement in 1897 established the boundary on the west, while the Anglo-French agreement of June 14, 1898, defined the border on the east. In 1899, following the disintegration of the French Sudan, the districts of Fada N’Gurma and Say, located north of Borgu, were added to Dahomey, but in 1907, they were moved to Upper Senegal-Niger, with which they are closely linked both geographically and ethnographically. From 1894 onward, the French focused heavily on developing the country's material resources.

The “Customs.”—Reference has already been made to the Dahomey “Customs,” which gave the country an infamous notoriety. The “Customs” appear to date from the middle of the 17th century, and were of two kinds: the grand Customs performed on the death of a king; and the minor Customs, held twice a year. The horrors of these saturnalia of bloodshed were attributable not to a love of cruelty but to filial piety. Upon the death of a king human victims were sacrificed at his grave to supply him with wives, attendants, &c. in the spirit world. The grand Customs surpassed the annual rites in splendour and bloodshed. At those held in 1791 during January, February and March, it is stated that no fewer than 500 men, women and children were put to death. The minor Customs were first heard of in Europe in the early years of the 18th century. They formed continuations of the grand Customs, and “periodically supplied the departed monarch with fresh attendants in the shadowy world.” The actual slaughter was preluded by dancing, feasting, speechmaking and elaborate ceremonial. The victims, chiefly prisoners of war, were dressed in calico shirts decorated round the neck and down the sleeves with red bindings, and with a crimson patch on the left breast, and wore long white night-caps with spirals of blue ribbon sewn on. Some of them, tied in baskets, were at one stage of the proceedings taken to the top of a high platform, together with an alligator, a cat and a hawk in similar baskets, and paraded on the heads of the Amazons. The king then made a speech explaining that the victims were sent to testify to his greatness in spirit-land, the men and the animals each to their kind. They were then hurled down into the middle of a surging crowd of natives, and butchered. At another stage of the festival human sacrifices were offered at the shrine of the king’s ancestors, and the blood was sprinkled on their graves. This was known as Zan Nyanyana or “evil night,” the king going in procession with his wives and officials and himself executing the doomed. These semi-public massacres formed only a part of the slaughter, for many women, eunuchs and others within the palace were done to death privately. The skulls were used to adorn the palace walls, and the king’s sleeping-chamber was paved with the heads of his enemies. The skulls of the conquered kings were turned into royal drinking cups, their conversion to this use being esteemed an honour. Sir Richard Burton insists (A Mission to Gelele, King of Dahome) that the horrors of these rites were greatly exaggerated. For instance, the story that the king floated a canoe in a tank of human blood was, he writes, quite untrue. He denies, too, that the victims were tortured, and affirms that on the contrary they were treated humanely, and, in many cases, even acquiesced in their fate. It seems that cannibalism was a sequel of the Customs, the bodies of the slaughtered being roasted and devoured smoking hot. On the death of the king the wives, after the most extravagant demonstrations of grief, broke and destroyed everything within their reach, and attacked and murdered each other, the uproar continuing until order was restored by the new sovereign.

The “Customs.”—There have already been mentions of the Dahomey “Customs,” which gave the country a notorious reputation. The “Customs” seem to have originated in the mid-17th century and were of two types: the grand Customs performed upon a king’s death and the minor Customs held twice a year. The horrors of these blood-soaked events were not due to a love of cruelty but rather to a sense of duty to family. When a king died, human sacrifices were made at his grave to provide him with wives, attendants, etc., in the afterlife. The grand Customs far exceeded the annual rites in both spectacle and bloodshed. During the ceremonies in 1791, it’s reported that at least 500 men, women, and children were killed. The minor Customs were first discovered in Europe in the early 18th century and were seen as extensions of the grand Customs, “periodically providing the departed king with new attendants in the spirit world.” The actual slaughter was preceded by dancing, feasting, speeches, and elaborate rituals. The victims, mostly prisoners of war, were dressed in calico shirts adorned with red trimmings around the neck and sleeves, and a red patch on the left side of the chest, along with long white nightcaps decorated with spirals of blue ribbon. Some victims, bound in baskets, were taken to the top of a high platform along with an alligator, a cat, and a hawk in similar baskets, and paraded on the heads of the Amazons. The king would then give a speech explaining that the victims were being sent to honor his greatness in the spirit world, each type of victim going to their respective place. They were then thrown into a chaotic crowd of locals and slaughtered. At another point in the festival, human sacrifices were made at the shrine of the king’s ancestors, and their blood was sprinkled on the graves. This event was known as Zan Nyanyana or “evil night,” during which the king paraded with his wives and officials, personally executing the condemned. These semi-public massacres were just a part of the overall killings, as many women, eunuchs, and others in the palace were killed in private. The skulls were used to decorate the palace walls, and the king’s sleeping quarters were carpeted with the heads of his enemies. The skulls of defeated kings were turned into royal drinking cups, with this repurposing considered an honor. Sir Richard Burton insists (A Mission to Gelele, King of Dahome) that the horrors of these rituals were greatly exaggerated. For example, he writes that the tale of the king floating a canoe in a tank of human blood is completely false. He also denies that the victims were tortured, claiming instead that they were treated humanely and, in many cases, accepted their fate. It seems cannibalism resulted from the Customs, with the bodies of those killed being roasted and consumed while still hot. Upon the king’s death, the wives, after displaying extreme grief, would break and destroy everything within reach and attack and kill each other, creating a disturbance that continued until the new king restored order.

Amazonian Army.—The training of women as soldiers was the most singular Dahomeyan institution. About one-fourth of the whole female population were said to be “married to the fetich,” many even before their birth, and the remainder were entirely at the disposal of the king. The most favoured were selected as his own wives or enlisted into the regiments of Amazons, and then the chief men were liberally supplied. Of the female captives the most promising were drafted into the ranks as soldiers, and the rest became Amazonian camp followers and slaves in the royal households. These female levies formed the flower of the Dahomeyan army. They were marshalled in regiments, each with its distinctive uniform and badges, and they took the post of honour in all battles. Their number has been variously stated. Sir R. F. Burton, in 1862, who saw the army marching out of Kana on an expedition, computed the whole force of female troops at 2500, of whom one-third were unarmed or only half-armed. Their weapons were blunderbusses, flint muskets, and bows and arrows. A later writer estimated the number of Amazons at 1000, and the male soldiers at 10,000. The system of warfare was one of surprise. The army marched out, and, when within a few days’ journey of the town to be attacked, silence was enjoined and no fires permitted. The regular highways were avoided, and the advance was by a road specially cut through the bush. The town was surrounded at night, and just before daybreak a rush was made and every soul captured if possible; none were killed except in self-defence, as the first object was to capture, not to kill. The season usually selected for expeditions was from January to March, or immediately after the annual “Customs.” The Amazons were carefully trained, and the king was in the habit of holding “autumn manœuvres” for the benefit of foreigners. Many Europeans have witnessed a mimic assault, and agree in ascribing a marvellous power of endurance to the women. Lines of thorny acacia were piled up one behind the other to represent defences, and at a given signal the Amazons, barefooted and without any special protection, charged and disappeared from sight. Presently they emerged within the lines torn and bleeding, but apparently insensible to pain, and the parade closed with a march past, each warrior leading a pretended captive bound with a rope.

Amazonian Army.—Training women as soldiers was the most unique institution in Dahomey. About a quarter of the entire female population was said to be “married to the fetish,” many even before they were born, and the rest were completely at the king's disposal. The most favored women were chosen to be his wives or enlisted in the regiments of Amazons, while the top leaders were well-provided for. Of the female captives, the most promising were recruited as soldiers, and the others became camp followers and slaves in royal households. These female soldiers formed the elite of the Dahomeyan army. They were organized into regiments, each with its own distinctive uniform and badges, and held the honor of fighting first in all battles. Estimates of their numbers varied. Sir R. F. Burton, in 1862, who observed the army leaving Kana for an expedition, estimated the total number of female troops at 2,500, with one-third either unarmed or only partially armed. Their weapons included blunderbusses, flint muskets, and bows and arrows. A later author estimated there were 1,000 Amazons and 10,000 male soldiers. The strategy of warfare relied on surprise. The army would march out, and when they were a few days away from their target town, they maintained silence and refrained from lighting fires. They avoided regular roads and instead used paths specially made through the bush. The town was surrounded at night, and just before dawn, they would rush in, trying to capture every person possible; killing was only allowed in self-defense, as the main goal was to capture, not to kill. The preferred time for these expeditions was from January to March, or right after the annual “Customs.” The Amazons underwent rigorous training, and the king often held “autumn maneuvers” for the benefit of foreign visitors. Many Europeans witnessed a simulated attack and noted the incredible endurance of the women. Lines of thorny acacia were stacked behind one another to mimic defenses, and at a signal, the Amazons, barefoot and without special protection, charged and vanished from view. Soon they reemerged within the lines, torn and bleeding but seemingly indifferent to pain, and the demonstration concluded with a march past, each warrior leading a fake captive bound with a rope.

Bibliography.Notre Colonie de Dahomey, by G. François (Paris, 1906), and Le Dahomey (1909), an official publication, deal with topography, ethnography and economics; L. Brunet and L. Giethlen, Dahomey et dépendances (Paris, 1900); Édouard Foà, Le Dahomey (Paris, 1895). Religion, laws and language are specially dealt with in Ewe-Speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast, by A. B. Ellis (London, 1890), and in La Côte des Esclaves et le Dahomey, by P. Bouche (Paris, 1885). Much historical matter, with particular notices of the Amazons and the “Customs,” is contained in A Mission to Gelele, by Sir R. Burton (London, 1864). The story of the French conquest is told in Campagne du Dahomey, by Jules Poirier (Paris, 1895). The standard authority on the early history is The History of Dahomey, by Archibald Dalzel (sometime governor of the English fort at Whydah) (London, 1793). The annual Reports issued by the British, Foreign, and French Colonial Offices may be consulted, and the Bibliographie raisonnée des ouvrages concernant le Dahomey, by A. Pawlowski (Paris, 1895), is a useful guide to the literature of the country to that date. A Carte du Dahomey, by A. Meunier, (3 sheets, scale 1:500,000), was published in Paris, 1907.

References.Notre Colonie de Dahomey, by G. François (Paris, 1906), and Le Dahomey (1909), an official publication, cover topics like geography, ethnography, and economics; L. Brunet and L. Giethlen, Benin et dépendances (Paris, 1900); Édouard Foà, Le Dahomey (Paris, 1895). Religion, laws, and language are specifically addressed in Ewe-Speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast, by A. B. Ellis (London, 1890), and in La Côte des Esclaves et le Dahomey, by P. Bouche (Paris, 1885). Much historical information, particularly about the Amazons and the “Customs,” is found in A Mission to Gelele, by Sir R. Burton (London, 1864). The story of the French conquest is narrated in Campagne du Dahomey, by Jules Poirier (Paris, 1895). The standard reference for early history is The History of Dahomey, by Archibald Dalzel (former governor of the English fort at Whydah) (London, 1793). Annual Reports from the British, Foreign, and French Colonial Offices are available for consultation, and Bibliographie raisonnée des ouvrages concernant le Dahomey, by A. Pawlowski (Paris, 1895), serves as a useful reference for the literature on the country up to that date. A Carte du Dahomey, by A. Meunier (3 sheets, scale 1:500,000), was published in Paris, 1907.


DAILLÉ (Dallaeus), JEAN (1594-1670), French Protestant divine, was born at Châtellerault and educated at Poitiers and Saumur. From 1612 to 1621 he was tutor to two of the grandsons of Philippe de Mornay, seigneur du Plessis Marly. Ordained to the ministry in 1623, he was for some time private chaplain to Du Plessis Mornay, whose memoirs he subsequently wrote. In 1625 Daillé was appointed minister of the church of Saumur, and in 1626 was chosen by the Paris consistory to be minister of the church of Charenton. Of his works, which are principally controversial, the best known is the treatise Du vrai emploi des Pères (1631), translated into English by Thomas Smith under the title A Treatise concerning the right use of the Fathers (1651). The work attacks those who made the authority of the Fathers conclusive on matters of faith and practice. Daillé contends that the text of the Fathers is often corrupt, and that even when it is correct their reasoning is often illogical. In his Sermons on the Philippians and Colossians, Daillé vindicated his claim to rank as a great preacher as well as an able controversialist. He was president of the last national synod held in France, which met at Loudun in 1659 (H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 1895, i. pp. 412 ff.), when, as in the Apologie des Synodes d’Alençon et de Charenton (1655), he defended the universalism of Moses Amyraut. He wrote also Apologie pour les Églises Réformées and La Foy fondée sur les Saintes Écritures. His life was written by his son Adrien, who retired to Zürich at the revocation of the edict of Nantes.

DAILLÉ (Dallaeus), JEAN (1594-1670), was a French Protestant minister born in Châtellerault and educated in Poitiers and Saumur. From 1612 to 1621, he served as a tutor to two grandsons of Philippe de Mornay, seigneur du Plessis Marly. He was ordained in 1623 and worked for some time as the private chaplain to Du Plessis Mornay, whose memoirs he later wrote. In 1625, Daillé became the minister of the church in Saumur and in 1626 was chosen by the Paris consistory to be the minister of the church in Charenton. His works are mostly contentious, with the best-known being the treatise Du vrai emploi des Pères (1631), which was translated into English by Thomas Smith as A Treatise concerning the right use of the Fathers (1651). This work critiques those who took the authority of the Fathers as definitive in matters of faith and practice. Daillé argued that the texts of the Fathers are often corrupted, and even when accurate, their reasoning is frequently flawed. In his Sermons on the Philippians and Colossians, Daillé proved himself to be not only a great preacher but also a skilled debater. He was the president of the last national synod held in France, which took place in Loudun in 1659 (H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 1895, i. pp. 412 ff.), where, similar to his work Apologie des Synodes d’Alençon et de Charenton (1655), he defended the universalism of Moses Amyraut. He also wrote Apologie pour les Églises Réformées and La Foy fondée sur les Saintes Écritures. His life was documented by his son Adrien, who moved to Zürich after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.


DAIRY and DAIRY-FARMING (from the Mid. Eng. deieris, from dey, a maid-servant, particularly one about a farm; cf. Norw. deia, as in bu-deia, a maid in charge of live-stock, and in other compounds; thus “dairy” means that part of the farm buildings where the “dey” works). Milk, either in its natural state, or in the form of butter and cheese, is an article of diet so useful, wholesome and palatable, that dairy management, which 738 includes all that concerns its production and treatment, constitutes a most important branch of husbandry. The physical conditions of the different countries of the world have determined in each case the most suitable animal for dairy purposes. The Laplander obtains his supplies of milk from his rein-deer, the roving Tatar from his mares, and the Bedouin of the desert from his camels. In the temperate regions of the earth many pastoral tribes subsist mainly upon the milk of the sheep. In some rocky regions the goat is invaluable as a milk-yielder; and the buffalo is equally so amid the swamps and jungles of tropical climates. The milking of ewes was once a common practice in Great Britain; but it has fallen into disuse because of its hurtful effects upon the flock. A few milch asses and goats are here and there kept for the benefit of infants or invalids; but with these exceptions the cow is the only animal now used for dairy purposes.

DAIRY and DAIRY-FARMING (from the Middle English deieris, from dey, a maid-servant, especially one on a farm; cf. Norse deia, as in bu-deia, a maid responsible for livestock, and other compounds; thus “dairy” refers to the part of the farm buildings where the “dey” works). Milk, whether in its natural form or as butter and cheese, is such a useful, healthy, and tasty part of the diet that managing dairy production, which 738 includes everything involved in its production and handling, is a vital area of farming. The physical conditions in different countries have determined which animals are best suited for dairy needs. The Laplander gets milk from his reindeer, the nomadic Tatar from his mares, and the desert Bedouin from his camels. In temperate regions, many pastoral communities rely mainly on sheep's milk. In some rocky areas, goats are incredibly valuable for milk production; and in the swamps and jungles of tropical areas, the buffalo serves the same purpose. Milking ewes used to be common in Great Britain but has fallen out of practice due to its negative effects on the flock. A few milking donkeys and goats are occasionally kept for the benefit of infants or sick individuals; but apart from these exceptions, cows are now the only animals used for dairy purposes.

No branch of agriculture underwent greater changes during the closing quarter of the 19th century than dairy-farming; within the period named, indeed, the dairying industry may be said to have been revolutionized. The two great factors in this modification were the introduction about the year 1880 of the centrifugal cream-separator, whereby the old slow system of raising cream in pans was dispensed with, and the invention some ten years later of a quick and easy method of ascertaining the fat content of samples of milk without having to resort to the tedious processes of chemical analysis. About the year 1875 the agriculturists of the United Kingdom, influenced by various economic causes, began to turn their thoughts more intently in the direction of dairy-farming, and to the increased production of milk and cream, butter and cheese. On the 24th of October 1876 was held the first London dairy show, under the auspices of a committee of agriculturists, and it has been followed by a similar show in every subsequent year. The official report of the pioneer show stated that “there was a much larger attendance and a greater amount of enthusiasm in the movement than even the most sanguine of its promoters anticipated.” On the day named Professor J. Prince Sheldon read at the show a paper on the dairying industry, and proposed the formation of a society to be called the British Dairy Farmers’ Association. This was unanimously agreed to, and thus was founded an organization which has since been closely identified with the development of the dairying industry of the United Kingdom. In its earlier publications the Association was wont to reproduce from Household Words the following tribute to the cow:—

No part of agriculture experienced greater changes during the last quarter of the 19th century than dairy farming; in fact, the dairy industry can be said to have been completely transformed during this time. The two main factors that spurred this change were the introduction of the centrifugal cream separator around 1880, which eliminated the old, slow method of collecting cream in pans, and the invention, about ten years later, of a quick and easy way to measure the fat content of milk samples without the tedious chemical analysis. Around 1875, farmers in the United Kingdom, influenced by various economic reasons, began to focus more on dairy farming and increasing their production of milk, cream, butter, and cheese. The first London dairy show took place on October 24, 1876, organized by a committee of farmers, and it has been followed by a similar event every year since. The official report from this inaugural show noted that “there was a much larger attendance and a greater amount of enthusiasm in the movement than even the most optimistic of its promoters had expected.” On that day, Professor J. Prince Sheldon presented a paper on the dairy industry at the show and suggested the formation of a society called the British Dairy Farmers’ Association. This proposal was unanimously accepted, leading to the establishment of an organization that has since been closely associated with the development of the dairy industry in the UK. In its early publications, the Association often included the following tribute to the cow from Household Words:—

“If civilized people were ever to lapse into the worship of animals, the Cow would certainly be their chief goddess. What a fountain of blessings is the Cow! She is the mother of beef, the source of butter, the original cause of cheese, to say nothing of shoe-horns, hair-combs and upper leather. A gentle, amiable, ever-yielding creature, who has no joy in her family affairs which she does not share with man. We rob her of her children that we may rob her of her milk, and we only care for her when the robbing may be perpetrated.”

“If civilized people ever started worshiping animals, the Cow would definitely be their main goddess. What a source of blessings the Cow is! She provides beef, is the source of butter, and is the original reason for cheese, not to mention shoehorns, hair combs, and leather. A gentle, kind, always-giving creature, who has no joy in her family life that she doesn't share with humans. We take her calves away so we can take her milk, and we only care about her when we can exploit her.”

The association has, directly or indirectly, brought about many valuable reforms and improvements in dairying. Its London shows have provided, year after year, a variety of object-lessons in cheese, in butter and in dairy equipment. In order to demonstrate to producers what is the ideal to aim at, there is nothing more effective than a competitive exhibition of products, and the approach to uniform excellence of character in cheese and butter of whatever kinds is most obvious to those who remember what these products were like at the first two or three dairy shows. Simultaneously there has been a no less marked advance in the mechanical aids to dairying, including, in particular, the centrifugal cream-separator, the crude germ of which was first brought before the public at the international dairy show held at Hamburg in the spring of 1877. The association in good time set the example, now beneficially followed in many parts of Great Britain, of providing means for technical instruction in the making of cheese and butter, by the establishment of a dairy school in the Vale of Aylesbury, subsequently removing it to new and excellent premises at Reading, where it is known as the British Dairy Institute. The initiation of butter-making contests at the annual dairy shows stimulated the competitive instinct of dairy workers, and afforded the public useful object-lessons; in more recent years milking competitions have been added. Milking trials and butter tests of cows conducted at the dairy shows have afforded results of much practical value. Many of the larger agricultural societies have found it expedient to include in their annual shows a working dairy, wherein butter-making contests are held and public demonstrations are given.

The association has, directly or indirectly, led to many valuable reforms and improvements in dairy farming. Its London shows have provided, year after year, a variety of practical examples in cheese, butter, and dairy equipment. To show producers the ideal standards to strive for, there’s nothing more effective than a competitive exhibition of products, and the path to consistently high-quality cheese and butter is clear to those who remember what these products looked like at the first couple of dairy shows. At the same time, there’s been a significant advancement in the mechanical tools for dairying, especially the centrifugal cream separator, the basic idea of which was first introduced to the public at the international dairy show in Hamburg in the spring of 1877. The association promptly set an example, now beneficially followed in many areas of Great Britain, by providing resources for technical training in cheese and butter production, starting with a dairy school in the Vale of Aylesbury, which was later moved to excellent new facilities in Reading, now known as the British Dairy Institute. The introduction of butter-making contests at the annual dairy shows sparked the competitive spirit among dairy workers and provided the public with useful demonstrations; in recent years, milking competitions have also been added. Milking trials and butter tests of cows conducted at the dairy shows have yielded results of significant practical value. Many of the larger agricultural societies have found it beneficial to include a working dairy in their annual shows, where butter-making contests are held and public demonstrations take place.

What are regarded as the dairy breeds of cattle is illustrated by the prize schedule of the annual London dairy show, in which sections are provided for cows and heifers of the Shorthorn, Jersey, Guernsey, Red Polled, Ayrshire, Kerry and Dexter breeds (see Cattle). A miscellaneous class is also provided, the entries in which are mostly cross-breds. There are likewise classes for Shorthorn bulls, Jersey bulls, and bulls of any other pure breed, but it is stipulated that all bulls must be of proved descent from dams that have won prizes in the milking trials or butter tests of the British Dairy Farmers’ Association or other high-class agricultural society. The importance of securing dairy characters in the sire is thus recognized, and it is notified that, as the object of the bull classes is to encourage the breeding of bulls for dairy purposes, the prizes are to be given solely to animals exhibited in good stock-getting condition.

What are considered the dairy breeds of cattle is shown by the prize schedule of the annual London dairy show, which includes sections for cows and heifers of the Shorthorn, Jersey, Guernsey, Red Polled, Ayrshire, Kerry, and Dexter breeds (see Cattle). There is also a miscellaneous class, where most entries are cross-breds. Additionally, there are classes for Shorthorn bulls, Jersey bulls, and bulls of any other pure breed, but it is required that all bulls must be of verified descent from mothers that have won prizes in the milking trials or butter tests of the British Dairy Farmers’ Association or other prestigious agricultural society. The importance of securing dairy traits in the sire is thus acknowledged, and it is stated that, since the goal of the bull classes is to promote the breeding of bulls for dairy purposes, the prizes will be awarded only to animals displayed in good breeding condition.

Milk and Butter Tests

Milk and Butter Inspections

The award of prizes in connexion with milking trials cannot be determined simply by the quantity of milk yielded in a given period, say twenty-four hours. Other matters must obviously be taken into consideration, such as the quality of the milk and the time that has elapsed since the birth cf the last calf. With regard to the former point, for example, it is quite possible for one cow to give more milk than another, but for the milk of the second cow to include the larger quantity of butter-fat. The awards are therefore determined by the total number of points obtained according to the following scheme:—

The awarding of prizes in connection with milking trials can't be decided solely based on the amount of milk produced in a specific time frame, like twenty-four hours. Other factors clearly need to be considered, such as the quality of the milk and the time that has passed since the last calf was born. For instance, it’s entirely possible for one cow to produce more milk than another, but the milk from the second cow could have a higher butter-fat content. The awards are therefore determined by the total number of points earned according to the following scheme:—

One point for every ten days since calving (deducting the first forty days), with a maximum of fourteen points.

One point for every ten days since giving birth (subtracting the first forty days), with a maximum of fourteen points.

One point for every pound of milk, taking the average of two days’ yield.

One point for every pound of milk, averaging the yield from two days.

Twenty points for every pound of butter-fat produced.

Twenty points for each pound of butterfat produced.

Four points for every pound of “solids other than fat.”

Four points for every pound of "solids other than fat."

Deductions.—Ten points each time the fat is below 3%.

Deductions.—Ten points each time the fat is under 3%.

  Ten points each time the solids other than fat fall below 8.5%.

Ten points every time the solids, excluding fat, drop below 8.5%.

Table I.Prize Shorthorn and Jersey Cows in the Milking Trials, London Dairy Show, 1900.

Table 1.Prize Shorthorn and Jersey Cows in the Milking Trials, London Dairy Show, 1900.

Cow. Age. In
Milk.
Milk
per
Day.
Fat. Other
Solids.
Total
Points.
  Years. Days. % % No.
Shorthorns eligible for Herd-Book            
  Heroine III. 6 61 52.4 3.7 8.3 91.5
  Musical 7 16 45.2 3.2 9.3 90.8
  Lady Rosedale 8 48 47.8 3.5 9.0 88.7
Shorthorns not eligible for Herd-Book            
  Granny 9 33 70.2 3.5 8.9 144.1
  Cherry 9 103 55.5 4.0 8.9 127.1
  Chance 6 23 60.0 3.6 8.9 124.6
Jerseys            
  Sultane 14th 12 256 41.7 4.9 9.4 112 
  Queen Bess 136 39.4 4.8 9.0 101 
  Gloaming IV. 7 156 30.5 6.7 9.5 94.9

This method of award is at present the best that can be devised, but it is possible that, as experience accumulates, some rearrangement of the points may be found to be desirable. Omitting many of the details, Table I. shows some of the results in the case of Shorthorn and Jersey prize cows. The days “in milk” denote in each case the number of days that have elapsed since calving; and if the one day’s yield of milk is desired in gallons, it can be obtained approximately1 by dividing the weight in 739 pounds by 10: thus, the Shorthorn cow Heroine III. gave 52.4 ℔, or 5.24 gallons, of milk per day. The table is incidentally of interest as showing how superior as milch kine are the unregistered or non-pedigree Shorthorns—which are typical of the great majority of dairy cows in the United Kingdom—as compared with the pedigree animals entered, or eligible for entry, in Coates’s Herd-Book. The evening’s milk, it should be added, is nearly always richer in fat than the morning’s, but the percentages in the table relate to the entire day’s milk.

This method of awarding points is currently the best we have, but as we gather more experience, we might find that some adjustments to the points could be beneficial. Skipping many details, Table I shows some results for Shorthorn and Jersey prize cows. The "days in milk" indicate how many days have passed since calving; if you want the daily milk yield in gallons, you can estimate it by dividing the weight in pounds by 10. For example, the Shorthorn cow Heroine III produced 52.4 lbs, or 5.24 gallons, of milk each day. The table is also interesting because it shows how much better unregistered or non-pedigree Shorthorns—which make up the majority of dairy cows in the UK—are as milk producers compared to the pedigree animals listed in Coates’s Herd-Book. It’s worth mentioning that evening milk is usually richer in fat than morning milk, but the percentages in the table refer to the total daily milk yield.

The milking trials are based upon a chemical test, as it is necessary to determine the percentage of fat and of solids other than fat in each sample of milk. The butter test, on the other hand, is a churn test, as the cream has to be separated from the milk and churned. The following is the scale of points used at the London dairy show in making awards in butter tests:—

The milking trials rely on a chemical test to find out the percentage of fat and solids other than fat in each milk sample. In contrast, the butter test is a churn test, where the cream needs to be separated from the milk and churned. Below is the point scale used at the London dairy show for awarding butter tests:—

One point for every ounce of butter; one point for every completed ten days since calving, deducting the first forty days. Maximum allowance for period of lactation, 12 points.

One point for every ounce of butter; one point for every completed ten days since calving, subtracting the first forty days. The maximum allowance for the lactation period is 12 points.

Fractions of ounces of butter, and incomplete periods of less than ten days, to be worked out in decimals and added to the total points.

Fractions of ounces of butter and incomplete periods of fewer than ten days will be calculated in decimals and added to the total points.

In the case of cows obtaining the same number of points, the prize to be awarded to the cow that has been the longest time in milk.

In the event that cows have the same number of points, the prize will go to the cow that has been in milk the longest.

No prize or certificate to be given in the case of:—

No prize or certificate will be awarded in the case of:—

(a) Cows under five years old failing to obtain 28 points.

(a) Cows under five years old that don't reach 28 points.

(b) Cows five years old and over failing to obtain 32 points.

(b) Cows that are five years old or older and do not reach 32 points.

Table II.Prize Shorthorn and Jersey Cows in the Butter Tests, London Dairy Show, 1900.

Table 2.Prize Shorthorn and Jersey Cows in the Butter Tests, London Dairy Show, 1900.

Cows. Age. In
Milk.
Milk
per
Day.
Butter. Milk to
1 ℔
Butter.
Points
for
Butter.
Points
for
Lactation.
Total
Points.
  Years. Days. ℔   oz. ℔   oz. No. No. No.
Shorthorns—                
  1st 9 104 55   2 2   5¼ 23.67 37.25 6.40 43.65
  2nd 9 34 72   7 2   10¾ 27.11 42.75 .. 42.75
  3rd 7 33 58   5 2   7¾ 23.47 39.75 .. 39.75
Jerseys—                
  1st 7 157 29   10 2   2¼ 13.83 34.25 11.70 45.95
  2nd 4 103 33   10 2   3 15.37 35.00 6.30 41.30
  3rd 12 257 40   13 1   12 23.32 28.00 12.00 40.00

The manner in which butter tests are decided will be rendered clear by a study of Table II. It is seen that whilst the much larger Shorthorn cows—having a bigger frame to maintain and consuming more food—gave both more milk and more butter in the day of twenty-four hours, the Jersey milk was much the richer in fat. In the case of the first-prize Jersey the “butter ratio,” as it is termed, was excellent, as only 13.83 ℔ of milk were required to yield 1 ℔ of butter; in the case of the second-prize Shorthorn, practically twice this quantity (or 27.11 lb) was needed. Moreover, if the days in milk are taken into account, the difference in favour of the Jersey is seen to be 123 days.

The way butter tests are evaluated will be clarified by looking at Table II. It shows that while the much larger Shorthorn cows—having a bigger body to support and consuming more feed—produced more milk and butter over a 24-hour period, the Jersey milk was significantly higher in fat content. For the first-prize Jersey, the "butter ratio," as it's called, was excellent, requiring only 13.83 lbs of milk to produce 1 lb of butter; for the second-prize Shorthorn, nearly double that amount (or 27.11 lbs) was necessary. Additionally, when considering the days in milk, the Jersey has an advantage of 123 days.

Table III.Summary of the English Jersey Cattle Society’s Butter Tests, Fourteen Years, 1886-1899.

Table 3.Summary of the English Jersey Cattle Society’s Butter Tests, Fourteen Years, 1886-1899.

Cows’ Ages. Cows
Tested.
Average
Time in
Milk.
Average
Milk
Yield.
Average
Butter
Yield.
Quantity
Milk to
1 ℔
Butter
Years. No. Days ℔   oz. ℔   oz.
1 to  2 2 34 15   2 0   13 18.43
2  ”  3 57 73 24   15¼ 1   5¼ 18.74
3  ”  4 108 77 29   14¾ 1   10 18.42
4  ”  5 165 72 32   5½ 1   11¼ 19.01
5  ”  6 188 80 32   15¼ 1   12 18.76
6  ”  7 189 89 34   7¾ 1   13 18.92
7  ”  8 139 84 33   11¼ 1   13¼ 18.40
8  ”  9 71 82 33   6½ 1   12 19.03
9  ” 10 42 92 32   6½ 1   11¼ 18.95
10  ” 11 31 88 35   4 1   14¼ 18.60
11  ” 12 15 89 37   1 1   13¾ 19.96
12  ” 13 13 95 34   1¼ 1   10½ 20.56
13  ” 14 3 54 42   1¼ 2   1¾ 19.85

The butter-yielding capacity of the choicest class of butter cows, the Jerseys, is amply illustrated in the results of the butter tests conducted by the English Jersey Cattle Society over the period of fourteen years 1886 to 1899 inclusive. These tests were carried out year after year at half a dozen different shows, and the results are classified in Table III. according to the age of the animals. The average time in milk is measured by the number of days since calving, and the milk and butter yields are those for the day of twenty-four hours. The last column shows the “butter ratio.” This number is lower in the case of the Jerseys than in that of the general run of dairy cows. The average results from the total of 1023 cows of the various ages are:—One day’s milk, 32 ℔ 2¼ oz., equal to about 3 gallons or 12 quarts; one day’s butter, 1 ℔ 10¾ oz.; butter ratio, 19.13 or about 16 pints of milk to 1 ℔ of butter. Individual yields are sometimes extraordinarily high. Thus at the Tring show in 1899 the three leading Jersey cows gave the following results:—

The butter production potential of the best butter cows, the Jerseys, is clearly shown in the results of the butter tests conducted by the English Jersey Cattle Society over fourteen years from 1886 to 1899. These tests were done annually at several different shows, and the results are listed in Table III based on the animals' ages. The average time in milk is measured by the number of days since calving, and the milk and butter yields are recorded for a full day. The last column indicates the “butter ratio.” This number is lower for Jerseys compared to the average dairy cows. The average results from a total of 1023 cows of various ages are: one day's milk, 32 lbs 2¼ oz, which is about 3 gallons or 12 quarts; one day's butter, 1 lb 10¾ oz; butter ratio, 19.13 or about 16 pints of milk for every lb of butter. Individual yields can be exceptionally high. For instance, at the Tring show in 1899, the top three Jersey cows produced the following results:—

Cow. Age. Live-
Weight.
In Milk. Butter. Butter
Ratio.
  Years. Days. ℔   oz.
Sundew 4th 8 929 77 3   6¾ 15.10
Madeira 5th 7 1060 107 2   15½ 16.14
Em 7 864 44 3   4¾ 13.32

The eight prize-winning Jerseys on this occasion, with an average weight of 916 ℔ and an average of 117 days in milk, yielded an average of 2 ℔ 9 oz. of butter per cow in the twenty-four hours, the butter ratio working out at 16.69. At the Tring show of 1900 a Shorthorn cow Cherry gave as much as 4 ℔ 4½ oz. of butter in twenty-four hours; she had been in milk 41 days, and her butter ratio worked out at 15.79, which is unusually good for a big cow.

The eight prize-winning Jerseys this time, with an average weight of 916 lbs and an average of 117 days in milk, produced an average of 2 lbs 9 oz of butter per cow in a twenty-four hour period, resulting in a butter ratio of 16.69. At the Tring show in 1900, a Shorthorn cow named Cherry produced as much as 4 lbs 4½ oz of butter in twenty-four hours; she had been in milk for 41 days, and her butter ratio was 15.79, which is exceptionally good for a larger cow.

In the six years 1895 to 1900 inclusive 285 cows of the Shorthorn, Jersey, Guernsey and Red Polled breeds were subjected to butter tests at the London dairy show, and the general results are summarized in Table IV.

In the six years from 1895 to 1900, a total of 285 cows from the Shorthorn, Jersey, Guernsey, and Red Polled breeds underwent butter tests at the London Dairy Show, and the overall results are summarized in Table IV.

Although cows in the showyard may perhaps be somewhat upset by their unusual surroundings, and thus not yield so well as at home, yet the average results of these butter-test trials over a number of years are borne out by the private trials that have taken place in various herds. The trials have, moreover, brought into prominence the peculiarities of different breeds, such as: (a) that the Shorthorns, Red Polls and Kerries, being cattle whose milk contains small fat globules, are better for milk than the Jerseys and Guernseys, whose milk is richer, containing larger-sized fat globules, and is therefore more profitable for converting into butter; (b) that the weights of the animals, and consequently the proportionate food, must be taken into account in estimating the cost of the dairy produce; (c) that the influence of the stage reached in the period of lactation is much more marked in some breeds than in others.

Although cows in the showyard may be somewhat stressed by their unfamiliar environment and might not produce as well as they do at home, the average results from these butter-test trials over several years align with private tests conducted in various herds. Additionally, the trials have highlighted the characteristics of different breeds, such as: (a) the Shorthorns, Red Polls, and Kerries, which have milk with smaller fat globules, are better for milk production than the Jerseys and Guernseys, whose milk is richer, containing larger fat globules, making it more profitable for butter production; (b) the weights of the animals, and therefore the amount of food they require, must be considered when estimating the cost of dairy products; (c) the impact of the stage of lactation is much more significant in some breeds than in others.

Table IV.Average Butter Yields and Butter Ratios at the London Dairy Show, Six Years, 1895-1900.

Table 4.Average Butter Yields and Butter Ratios at the London Dairy Show, Six Years, 1895-1900.

Breed. No. of
Cows.
In
Milk.
Butter. Milk to 1 ℔
Butter.
    Days. ℔   oz.
Shorthorn 106 50 1   11 28.81
Jersey 126 99 1   10¼ 19.15
Guernsey 23 72 1   9½ 21.86
Red Polled 30 60 1   4¾ 30.29

An instructive example of the milk-yielding capacity of Jersey cows is afforded in the carefully kept records of Lord Rothschild’s herd at Tring Park, Herts. Overleaf are given the figures for four years, the gallons being calculated at the rate of 10 lb of milk to the gallon.

An informative example of the milk production ability of Jersey cows can be seen in the well-maintained records of Lord Rothschild’s herd at Tring Park, Herts. On the next page, you will find the figures for four years, with the gallons calculated at a rate of 10 pounds of milk per gallon.

740

740

In 1897, 30 cows averaged 6396 ℔, or 640 gallons per cow.
In 1898, 29  ”    ” 6209   ” 621    ”    ”
In 1899, 37  ”    ” 6430   ” 643    ”    ”
In 1900, 39  ”    ” 6136   ” 614    ”    ”

The average over the four years works out at about 630 gallons per cow per annum.

The average over the four years comes to about 630 gallons per cow per year.

Cows of larger type will give more milk than the Jerseys, but it is less rich in fat. The milk record for the year 1900 of the herd of Red Polled cattle belonging to Mr Garrett Taylor, Whitlingham, Norfolk, affords a good example. The cows in the herd, which had before 1900 produced one or more calves, and in 1900 added another to the list, being in full profit the greater part of the year, numbered 82. Their total yield was 521,950 ℔ of milk, or an average of 6365 ℔—equivalent to about 636 gallons—per cow. In 1899 the average yield of 96 cows was 6283 ℔ or 628 gallons; in 1898 the average yield of 75 cows was 6473 ℔ or 647 gallons. Of cows which dropped a first calf in the autumn of 1899, one of them—Lemon—milked continuously for 462 days, yielding a total of 7166 ℔ of milk, being still in milk when the herd year closed on the 27th of December. Similar cases were those of Nora, which gave 9066 ℔ of milk in 455 days; Doris, 8138 ℔ in 462 days; Brisk, 9248 ℔ in 469 days; Della, 8806 ℔ in 434 days, drying 28 days before the year ended; and Lottie, 6327 ℔ in 394 days, also drying 28 days before the year ended; these were all cows with their first calf. Eight cows in the herd gave milk on every day of the 52 weeks, and 30 others had their milk recorded on 300 days or more. Three heifers which produced a first calf before the 11th of April 1900, averaged in the year 4569 ℔ of milk, or about 456 gallons. In 1900 three cows, Eyke Jessie, Kathleen and Doss, each gave over 10,000 ℔, or 1000 gallons of milk; four cows gave from 9000 ℔ to 10,000 ℔, two from 8000 ℔ to 9000 ℔, 17 from 7000 ℔ to 8000 ℔, 19 from 6000 ℔ to 7000 ℔, 30 from 5000 ℔ to 6000 ℔, and 16 from 4000 ℔ to 5000 ℔. The practice, long followed at Whitlingham, of developing the milk-yielding habit by milking a young cow so long as she gives even a small quantity of milk daily, is well supported by the figures denoting the results.

Cows of a larger breed produce more milk than Jerseys, but their milk has less fat. A good example is the milk production record for 1900 from Mr. Garrett Taylor's herd of Red Polled cattle in Whitlingham, Norfolk. The herd included 82 cows that had produced one or more calves before 1900 and added another calf that year, which means they were in full milk production for most of the year. Their total milk yield was 521,950 pounds, averaging 6,365 pounds—around 636 gallons—per cow. In 1899, 96 cows averaged 6,283 pounds or 628 gallons; in 1898, 75 cows averaged 6,473 pounds or 647 gallons. One cow from those that had their first calf in the autumn of 1899, named Lemon, continuously milked for 462 days, producing a total of 7,166 pounds of milk and was still milking when the herd year ended on December 27. Other similar cases included Nora, with 9,066 pounds over 455 days; Doris, 8,138 pounds in 462 days; Brisk, 9,248 pounds in 469 days; Della, 8,806 pounds in 434 days, drying off 28 days before the year ended; and Lottie, 6,327 pounds in 394 days, also drying off 28 days before the year ended; all were first-time mothers. Eight cows in the herd produced milk every day for all 52 weeks, and 30 others had milk recorded for 300 days or more. Three heifers that had their first calf before April 11, 1900, averaged 4,569 pounds of milk, or about 456 gallons, that year. In 1900, three cows—Eyke Jessie, Kathleen, and Doss—each produced over 10,000 pounds, or 1,000 gallons, of milk. Four cows produced between 9,000 and 10,000 pounds, two between 8,000 and 9,000 pounds, 17 between 7,000 and 8,000 pounds, 19 between 6,000 and 7,000 pounds, 30 between 5,000 and 6,000 pounds, and 16 between 4,000 and 5,000 pounds. The long-standing practice at Whitlingham of encouraging milk production by milking young cows for as long as they produce even a small amount of milk daily is well supported by these results.

Though milking trials and butter tests are not usually available to the ordinary dairy farmer in the management of his herd, it is, on the other hand, a simple matter for him to keep what is known as a milk register. By a milk register is meant a record of the quantity of milk yielded by a cow. In other words, it is a quantitative estimation of the milk the cow gives. It affords no information as to the quality of the milk or as to its butter-yielding or cheese-yielding capacity. Nevertheless, by its aid the milk-producing capacity of a cow can be ascertained exactly, and her character in this respect can be expressed by means of figures about which there need be no equivocation. A greater or less degree of exactness can be secured, according to the greater or less frequency with which the register is taken. Even a weekly register would give a fair idea as to the milk yields of a cow, and would be extremely valuable as compared with no register at all.

Although milk tests and butter quality assessments are usually not accessible to the average dairy farmer managing their herd, it's relatively straightforward for them to maintain a milk register. A milk register is a record of the amount of milk produced by each cow. In other words, it quantitatively tracks how much milk a cow gives. It doesn't provide any information on the milk's quality or its potential for butter or cheese production. However, using this register, a farmer can accurately determine a cow's milk-producing capacity, and her performance in this area can be represented clearly with numbers that leave no room for misunderstanding. The accuracy of this information can vary depending on how often the register is updated. Even a weekly record would give a decent understanding of a cow’s milk production and would be incredibly useful compared to not having any record at all.

The practice of taking the milk register, as followed in a well-known dairy, may be briefly described. The cows are always milked in the stalls, and during summer they are brought in twice a day for this purpose. After each cow is milked, the pail containing the whole of her milk is hung on a spring balance suspended in a convenient position, and from the gross weight indicated there is deducted the already known weight of the pail.2 The difference, which represents the weight of milk, is recorded in a book suitably ruled. This book when open presents a view of one week’s records. In the left-hand column are the names of the cows; on the right of this are fourteen columns, two of which receive the morning and evening record of each cow. In a final column on the right appears the week’s total yield for each cow; and space is also allowed for any remarks. Fractions of a pound are not entered, but 18 ℔ 12 oz. would be recorded as 19 ℔, whereas 21 ℔ 5 oz. would appear as 21 ℔, so that a fraction of over half a pound is considered as a whole pound, and a fraction of under half a pound is ignored. By dividing the pounds by 10 the yield in gallons is readily ascertained.

The process of keeping the milk register, as done in a well-known dairy, can be summarized. The cows are always milked in their stalls, and during the summer, they are brought in twice a day for this. After each cow is milked, the pail containing all of her milk is hung on a spring scale positioned conveniently, and from the gross weight shown, the known weight of the pail is subtracted. The difference, which shows the weight of the milk, is noted in a specially ruled book. When the book is open, it shows a week’s worth of records. The left column contains the names of the cows; to the right are fourteen columns, two of which note the morning and evening totals for each cow. The final column on the right shows the total weekly yield for each cow, and there is also space for remarks. Fractions of a pound aren’t recorded, so 18 ℔ 12 oz. would be written as 19 ℔, while 21 ℔ 5 oz. would appear as 21 ℔. This means that any fraction over half a pound is counted as a whole pound, while fractions under half a pound are ignored. By dividing the pounds by 10, the yield in gallons can easily be calculated.

Every dairy farmer has some idea, as to each of his cows, whether she is a good, a bad or an indifferent milker, but such knowledge is at best only vague. By the simple means indicated the character of each cow as a milk-producer is slowly but surely recorded in a manner which is at once exact and definite. Such a record is particularly valuable to the farmer, in that it shows to him the relative milk-yielding capacities of his cows, and thus enables him gradually to weed out the naturally poor milkers and replace them by better ones. It also guides him in regulating the supply of food according to the yield of milk. The register will, in fact, indicate unerringly which are the best milk-yielding cows in the dairy, and which therefore are, with the milking capacity in view, the best to breed from.

Every dairy farmer has a general sense about each of his cows, whether she’s a good, bad, or average milker, but that knowledge is usually quite vague. By using the simple methods mentioned, the milking performance of each cow is gradually and accurately recorded. This record is extremely valuable for the farmer, as it shows the relative milk production capabilities of his cows, allowing him to slowly replace the cows that don’t produce well with better ones. It also helps him adjust the feed supply based on the milk yield. The register will clearly indicate which cows yield the most milk, making them the best choices for breeding based on their milking capacity.

The simplicity and inexpensiveness of the milk register must not be overlooked. These are features which should commend it especially to the notice of small dairy farmers, for with a moderate number of cows it is particularly easy to introduce the register. But even with a large dairy it will be found that, as soon as the system has got fairly established, the additional time and trouble involved will sink into insignificance when compared with the benefits which accrue.

The simplicity and low cost of the milk register shouldn’t be ignored. These are qualities that should especially appeal to small dairy farmers, as it’s quite easy to implement the register with a moderate number of cows. However, even for larger dairies, once the system is properly set up, the extra time and effort required will pale in comparison to the benefits gained.

The importance of ascertaining not only the quantity, but also the quality of milk is aptly illustrated in the case of two cows at the Tring show, 1900. The one cow gave in 24 hours 4½ gallons of milk, which at 7d. per gallon would work out at about 2s. 7d.; she made 2 ℔ 12 oz. of butter, which at 1s. 4d. per ℔ would bring in 3s. 8d.; consequently by selling the milk the owner lost about 1s. 1d. per day. The second cow gave 513 gallons of milk, which would work out at 3s. 1d.; she made 1 ℔ 12 oz. of butter, which would only be worth 2s. 4d., so that by converting the milk into butter the owner lost 9d. per day.

The importance of determining not just the quantity, but also the quality of milk is clearly shown in the case of two cows at the Tring show in 1900. The first cow produced 4½ gallons of milk in 24 hours, which at 7d. per gallon amounts to about 2s. 7d.; she also made 2 ℔ 12 oz. of butter, worth 3s. 8d. at 1s. 4d. per ℔; therefore, by selling the milk, the owner lost about 1s. 1d. each day. The second cow produced 513 gallons of milk, worth 3s. 1d.; she made 1 ℔ 12 oz. of butter, which was only valued at 2s. 4d., meaning the owner lost 9d. per day by converting the milk into butter.

The colour of milk is to some extent an indication of its quality—the deeper the colour the better the quality. The colour depends upon the size of the fat globules, a deep yellowish colour indicating large globules of fat. When the globules are of large size the milk will churn more readily, and the butter is better both in quality and in colour.

The color of milk can somewhat indicate its quality—the deeper the color, the better the quality. The color depends on the size of the fat globules, with a deep yellowish hue indicating larger fat globules. When the globules are larger, the milk churns more easily, and the butter is superior in both quality and color.

The following fifty dairy rules relating to the milking and general management of cows, and to the care of milk and dairy utensils, were drawn up on behalf of, and published by, the United States department of agriculture at Washington. They are given here with a few merely verbal alterations:—

The following fifty dairy rules about milking, managing cows, and caring for milk and dairy equipment were created and published by the United States Department of Agriculture in Washington. They are presented here with just a few minor word changes:—

The Owner and his Helpers

The Owner and his Team

1. Read current dairy literature and keep posted on new ideas.

1. Read up-to-date dairy literature and stay informed about new ideas.

2. Observe and enforce the utmost cleanliness about the cattle, their attendants, the cow-house, the dairy and all utensils.

2. Keep everything around the cattle, their handlers, the barn, the dairy, and all the equipment as clean as possible.

3. A person suffering from any disease, or who has been exposed to a contagious disease, must remain away from the cows and the milk.

3. Anyone who is sick or has been exposed to a contagious disease must stay away from the cows and the milk.

The Cow-House

The Barn

4. Keep dairy cattle in a shed or building by themselves. It is preferable to have no cellar below and no storage loft above.

4. Keep dairy cattle in a separate shed or building. It’s best if there’s no basement below and no storage loft above.

5. Cow-houses should be well ventilated, lighted and drained; should have tight floors and walls, and be plainly constructed.

5. Cow barns should be well-ventilated, well-lit, and have good drainage; they should have solid floors and walls and be simply built.

6. Never use musty or dirty litter.

6. Always use fresh and clean litter.

7. Allow no strong-smelling material in the cow-house for any length of time. Store the manure under cover outside the cow-house, and remove it to a distance as often as practicable.

7. Don't keep any strong-smelling materials in the cowhouse for long. Store the manure under a cover outside the cowhouse, and move it away as often as possible.

8. Whitewash the cow-house once or twice a year; use gypsum in the manure gutters daily.

8. Whitewash the cow shed once or twice a year; use gypsum in the manure channels daily.

9. Use no dry, dusty feed just previous to milking; if fodder is dusty, sprinkle it before it is fed.

9. Avoid giving any dry, dusty feed right before milking; if the fodder is dusty, dampen it before feeding.

10. Clean and thoroughly air the cow-house before milking; in hot weather sprinkle the floor.

10. Clean and air out the barn before milking; in hot weather, sprinkle the floor.

11. Keep the cow-house and dairy room in good condition, and then insist that the dairy, factory or place where the milk goes be kept equally well.

11. Keep the barn and dairy room in good shape, and then make sure that the dairy, factory, or place where the milk goes is kept just as well.

741

741

The Cows

The Cows

12. Have the herd examined at least twice a year by a skilled veterinarian.

12. Have the herd checked at least twice a year by a qualified veterinarian.

13. Promptly remove from the herd any animal suspected of being in bad health, and reject her milk. Never add an animal to the herd until it is ascertained to be free from disease, especially tuberculosis.

13. Quickly take out any animal from the herd that seems to be unhealthy, and discard her milk. Never bring a new animal into the herd until you confirm it's disease-free, especially from tuberculosis.

14. Do not move cows faster than a comfortable walk while on the way to the place of milking or feeding.

14. Don’t move cows any faster than a calm walk when heading to the milking or feeding area.

15. Never allow the cows to be excited by hard driving, abuse, loud talking or unnecessary disturbance; do not expose them to cold or storms.

15. Never let the cows get stressed by rough handling, mistreatment, loud voices, or unnecessary disruptions; avoid exposing them to cold weather or storms.

16. Do not change the feed suddenly.

16. Don't change the feed abruptly.

17. Feed liberally, and use only fresh, palatable feed-stuffs; in no case should decomposed or mouldy material be used.

17. Feed generously, and only use fresh, tasty feed ingredients; never use anything that is spoiled or moldy.

18. Provide water in abundance, easy of access, and always pure; fresh, but not too cold.

18. Offer plenty of water that’s easy to get to and always clean; fresh, but not too cold.

19. Salt should always be accessible to the cows.

19. Cows should always have access to salt.

20. Do not allow any strong-flavoured food, like garlic, cabbages and turnips, to be eaten, except immediately after milking.

20. Do not let anyone eat any strong-flavored foods, like garlic, cabbage, and turnips, except right after milking.

21. Clean the entire skin of the cow daily. If hair in the region of the udder is not easily kept clean, it should be clipped.

21. Clean the entire skin of the cow every day. If the hair around the udder is difficult to keep clean, it should be trimmed.

22. Do not use the milk within twenty days before calving, nor for three to five days afterwards.

22. Do not drink the milk within twenty days before calving, and for three to five days afterward.

Milking

Milking

23. The milker should be clean in all respects; he should not use tobacco while milking; he should wash and dry his hands just before milking.

23. The milker should be clean in every way; he shouldn’t use tobacco while milking; he should wash and dry his hands right before milking.

24. The milker should wear a clean outer garment, used only when milking and kept in a clean place at other times.

24. The milker should wear a clean outer garment that is only used for milking and kept in a clean place at all other times.

25. Brush the udder and surrounding parts just before milking and wipe them with a clean damp cloth or sponge.

25. Brush the udder and the areas around it right before milking and wipe them down with a clean, damp cloth or sponge.

26. Milk quietly, quickly, cleanly and thoroughly. Cows do not like unnecessary noise or delay. Commence milking at exactly the same hour every morning and evening, and milk the cows in the same order.

26. Milk calmly, quickly, cleanly, and completely. Cows don’t like unnecessary noise or delays. Start milking at the exact same time every morning and evening, and milk the cows in the same order.

27. Throw away (but not on the floor—better in the gutter) the first two or three streams from each teat; this milk is very watery and of little value, but it may injure the rest.

27. Discard the first two or three streams from each nipple (but don't throw it on the floor—it's better to put it in the gutter); this milk is quite watery and not very useful, but it could harm the rest.

28. If in any milking a part of the milk is bloody or stringy or unnatural in appearance, the whole should be rejected.

28. If any of the milk is bloody, stringy, or looks unnatural during milking, the entire batch should be discarded.

29. Milk with dry hands; never let the hands come in contact with the milk.

29. Milk with dry hands; never let your hands touch the milk.

30. Do not allow dogs, cats or loafers to be around at milking time.

30. Don't let dogs, cats, or slackers be around during milking time.

31. If any accident occurs by which a pail, full or partly full, of milk becomes dirty, do not try to remedy this by straining, but reject all this milk and rinse the pail.

31. If any accident happens that causes a pail, full or partly full, of milk to become dirty, don't try to fix it by straining; instead, discard all of that milk and rinse out the pail.

32. Weigh and record the milk given by each cow, and take a sample morning and night, at least once a week, for testing by the fat test.

32. Weigh and record the milk produced by each cow, and collect a sample every morning and night, at least once a week, for testing the fat content.

Care of Milk

Milk Care

33. Remove the milk of every cow at once from the cow-house to a clean dry room, where the air is pure and sweet. Do not allow cans to remain in the cow-house while they are being filled with milk.

33. Take all the milk from the cows at once and move it to a clean, dry room with fresh, sweet air. Don’t let the cans stay in the cowhouse while you’re filling them with milk.

34. Strain the milk through a metal gauze and a flannel cloth or layer of cotton as soon as it is drawn.

34. Strain the milk through a metal sieve and a flannel cloth or a layer of cotton as soon as it’s collected.

35. Cool the milk as soon as strained—to 45° F. if the milk is for shipment, or to 60° if for home use or delivery to a factory.

35. Chill the milk right after straining—to 45°F if it's for shipping, or to 60°F if it's for personal use or delivery to a factory.

36. Never close a can containing warm milk.

36. Never close a can of warm milk.

37. If the cover is left off the can, a piece of cloth or mosquito netting should be used to keep out insects.

37. If the can is left uncovered, a piece of cloth or mosquito netting should be used to keep out insects.

38. If milk is stored, it should be kept in tanks of fresh cold water (renewed as often as the temperature increases to any material extent), in a clean, dry, cold room. Unless it is desired to remove cream, it should be stirred with a tin stirrer often enough to prevent the forming of a thick cream layer.

38. If milk is stored, it should be kept in tanks of fresh cold water (changed as often as the temperature rises significantly), in a clean, dry, cold room. Unless you want to remove cream, it should be stirred with a metal stirrer frequently enough to keep a thick layer of cream from forming.

39. Keep the night milk under shelter so that rain cannot get into the cans. In warm weather keep it in a tank of fresh cold water.

39. Keep the night milk protected from the rain so it doesn’t get into the cans. In warm weather, store it in a tank of fresh cold water.

40. Never mix fresh warm milk with that which has been cooled.

40. Never mix fresh warm milk with cold milk.

41. Do not allow the milk to freeze.

41. Don't let the milk freeze.

42. In no circumstances should anything be added to milk to prevent its souring. Cleanliness and cold are the only preventives needed.

42. Under no circumstances should anything be added to milk to stop it from souring. Cleanliness and cold are the only things needed to prevent it.

43. All milk should be in good condition when delivered at a creamery or a cheesery. This may make it necessary to deliver twice a day during the hottest weather.

43. All milk should be in good condition when delivered to a creamery or a cheesery. This might require delivering twice a day during the hottest weather.

44. When cans are hauled far they should be full, and carried in a spring waggon.

44. When cans are transported over long distances, they should be full and carried in a spring wagon.

45. In hot weather cover the cans, when moved in a waggon, with a clean wet blanket or canvas.

45. In hot weather, cover the cans, when transported in a wagon, with a clean, wet blanket or canvas.

The Utensils

The Tools

46. Milk utensils for farm use should be made of metal and have all joints smoothly soldered. Never allow them to become rusty or rough inside.

46. Milk utensils for farm use should be made of metal and have all joints smoothly soldered. Never let them get rusty or rough on the inside.

47. Do not haul waste products back to the farm in the cans used for delivering milk. When this is unavoidable, insist that the skim milk or whey tank be kept clean.

47. Don't transport waste back to the farm in the milk delivery cans. If you have to, make sure the skim milk or whey tank stays clean.

48. Cans used for the return of skim milk or whey should be emptied, scalded and cleaned as soon as they arrive at the farm.

48. Cans used for returning skim milk or whey should be emptied, sanitized, and cleaned as soon as they arrive at the farm.

49. Clean all dairy utensils by first thoroughly rinsing them in warm water; next clean inside and out with a brush and hot water in which a cleaning material is dissolved; then rinse and, lastly, sterilize by boiling water or steam. Use pure water only.

49. Clean all dairy utensils by first rinsing them thoroughly in warm water. Then, scrub both the inside and outside with a brush and hot water mixed with a cleaning solution. After that, rinse again and finally sterilize by boiling them in water or using steam. Use only pure water.

50. After cleaning, keep utensils inverted in pure air, and sun if possible, until wanted for use.

50. After cleaning, store utensils upside down in fresh air, and in the sun if you can, until you're ready to use them.

Food and Milk Production

Food and Dairy Production

In their comprehensive paper relating to the feeding of animals published in 1895, Lawes and Gilbert discussed amongst other questions that of milk production, and directed attention to the great difference in the demands made on the food—on the one hand for the production of meat (that is, of animal increase), and on the other for the production of milk. Not only, however, do cows of different breeds yield different quantities of milk, and milk of characteristically different composition, but individual animals of the same breed have very different milk-yielding capacity; and whatever the capacity of a cow may be, she has a maximum yield at one period of her lactation, which is followed by a gradual decline. Hence, in comparing the amounts of constituents stored up in the fattening increase of an ox with the amounts of the same constituents removed in the milk of a cow, it is necessary to assume a wide range of difference in the yield of milk. Accordingly, Table V. shows the amounts of nitrogenous substance, of fat, of non-nitrogenous substance not fat, of mineral matter, and of total solid matter, carried off in the weekly yield of milk of a cow, on the alternative assumptions of a production of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 or 20 quarts per head per day. For comparison, there are given at the foot of the table the amounts of nitrogenous substance, of fat, of mineral matter, and of total solid matter, in the weekly increase in live-weight of a fattening ox of an average weight of 1000 ℔—on the assumption of a weekly increase, first, of 10 ℔, and, secondly, of 15 ℔. The estimates of the amounts of constituents in the milk are based on the assumption that it will contain 12.5% of total solids—consisting of 3.65 albuminoids, 3.50 butter-fat, 4.60 sugar and 0.75 of mineral matter. The estimates of the constituents in the fattening increase of oxen are founded on determinations made at Rothamsted.

In their detailed paper on animal feeding published in 1895, Lawes and Gilbert explored various topics, including milk production, and highlighted the significant differences in food requirements for producing meat (which refers to animal growth) compared to producing milk. Cows of different breeds not only produce different amounts of milk with distinct compositions, but individual cows of the same breed can have vastly different milk production capacities. Additionally, regardless of a cow's capacity, she reaches a maximum milk yield at a certain point in her lactation, which is followed by a gradual decrease. Therefore, when comparing the nutrients stored in the weight gain of an ox to the nutrients removed in a cow's milk, it's important to consider a wide range of milk production variability. Thus, Table V presents the amounts of nitrogenous substances, fat, non-nitrogenous substances (excluding fat), mineral matter, and total solids found in a cow's weekly milk yield, under assumptions of producing 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, or 20 quarts per day. For comparison, the table also includes the amounts of nitrogenous substances, fat, mineral matter, and total solids in the weekly weight gain of a fattening ox weighing an average of 1000 lbs, assuming weekly increases of 10 lbs and 15 lbs. The estimates for milk constituents are based on the assumption that it contains 12.5% total solids, made up of 3.65% albuminoids, 3.50% butterfat, 4.60% sugar, and 0.75% mineral matter. The estimates for the constituents in the weight gain of oxen are based on measurements taken at Rothamsted.

Table V.Comparison of the Constituents of Food carried off in Milk, and in the Fattening Increase of Oxen.

Table V.Comparison of the Components of Food removed in Milk, and in the Weight Gain of Cattle.

[1 Gallon = 10.33 ℔] Nitrogenous
Substance.
Fat. Non-
Nitrogenous
Substance
not Fat
(Sugar).
Mineral
Matter.
Total
Solid
Matter.
In Milk per Week.
If:—
 4 quarts per head per day 2.64 2.53 3.33 0.54  9.04
 6  ”    ”    ” 3.96 3.80 4.99 0.81 13.56
 8  ”    ”    ” 5.28 5.06 6.66 1.08 18.08
10  ”    ”    ” 6.60 6.33 8.32 1.35 22.60
12  ”    ”    ” 7.92 7.59 9.99 1.62 27.12
14  ”    ”    ” 9.24 8.86 11.65 1.89 31.64
16  ”    ”    ” 10.56 10.12 13.32 2.16 36.16
18  ”    ”    ” 11.88 11.39 14.98 2.43 40.68
20  ”    ”    ” 13.20 12.65 16.65 2.70 45.20
In Increase in Live-Weight per Week.—Oxen.
If 10 ℔ increase 0.75 6.35 .. 0.15  7.25
If 15 ℔ increase 1.13 9.53 .. 0.22 10.88

With regard to the very wide range of yield of milk per head per day which the figures in the following table assume, it may be remarked that it is by no means impossible that the same animal might yield the largest amount, namely, 20 quarts, or 5 gallons, per day near the beginning, and only 4 quarts, or 742 1 gallon, or even less, towards the end of her period of lactation. At the same time, an entire herd of, for example, Shorthorns or Ayrshires, of fairly average quality, well fed, and including animals at various periods of lactation, should not yield an average of less than 8 quarts, or 2 gallons, and would seldom exceed 10 quarts, or 2½ gallons, per head per day the year round.

Regarding the wide range of milk yield per animal per day shown in the following table, it's worth noting that it's quite possible for the same animal to produce the highest amount, which is 20 quarts, or 5 gallons, at the start, and only 4 quarts, or 1 gallon, or even less, toward the end of her lactation period. At the same time, a whole herd of, for example, Shorthorns or Ayrshires, of fairly average quality, well-fed, and including animals at different stages of lactation, should not average less than 8 quarts, or 2 gallons, and would rarely exceed 10 quarts, or 2½ gallons, per animal per day throughout the year.

For the sake of illustration, an average yield of milk of 10 quarts, equal 2½ gallons, or between 25 and 26 ℔ per head per day, may be assumed, and the amount of constituents in the weekly yield at this rate may be compared with that in the weekly increase of the fattening ox at the higher rate assumed in the table, namely, 15 ℔ per 1000 ℔ live-weight, or 1.5% per week. It is seen that whilst of the nitrogenous substance of the food the amount stored up in the fattening increase of an ox would be only 1.13 ℔, the amount carried off as such in the milk would be 6.6 ℔, or nearly six times as much. Of mineral matter, again, whilst the fattening increase would only require about 0.22 ℔, the milk would Carry off 1.35 ℔, or again about six times as much. Of fat, however, whilst the fattening increase would contain 9.53 ℔, the milk would contain only 6.33 ℔, or only about two-thirds as much. On the other hand, whilst the fattening increase contains no other non-nitrogenous substance than fat, the milk would carry off 8.32 ℔ in the form of milk-sugar. This amount of milk-sugar, reckoned as fat, would correspond approximately to the difference between the fat in the milk and that in the fattening increase.

To illustrate, an average milk yield of 10 quarts, which is equal to 2½ gallons, or around 25 to 26 pounds per head per day, can be assumed. The amount of components in the weekly yield at this rate can be compared with that in the weekly increase of a fattening ox at the higher rate given in the table, which is 15 pounds per 1000 pounds of live weight, or 1.5% per week. It shows that while the nitrogenous substances from the food stored in the weight gain of an ox would be only 1.13 pounds, the amount taken out in the milk would be 6.6 pounds, or nearly six times more. For mineral matter, while the weight gain would need about 0.22 pounds, the milk would contain 1.35 pounds, again about six times as much. However, regarding fat, while the weight gain would have 9.53 pounds, the milk would have only 6.33 pounds, or about two-thirds as much. On the other hand, while the weight gain has no other non-nitrogenous substance apart from fat, the milk would carry away 8.32 pounds in the form of milk sugar. This amount of milk sugar, when considered as fat, would roughly correspond to the difference between the fat content in the milk and that in the weight gain.

It is evident, then, that the drain upon the food is very much greater for the production of milk than for that of meat. This is especially the case in the important item of nitrogenous substance; and if, as is frequently assumed, the butter-fat of the milk is at any rate largely derived from the nitrogenous substance of the food, so far as it is so at least about two parts of such substance would be required to produce one of fat. On such an assumption, therefore, the drain upon the nitrogenous substance of the food would be very much greater than that indicated in the table as existing as nitrogenous substance in the milk. To this point further reference will be made presently.

It's clear that the demand for food is much higher for producing milk than for meat. This is especially true for nitrogenous substances; and if, as is often assumed, the butterfat in the milk largely comes from the nitrogenous substances in the food, then for every part of fat produced, about two parts of such substances would be needed. Based on this assumption, the demand on the nitrogenous substances in the food would be much greater than what the table indicates as present in the nitrogenous substances of the milk. More will be mentioned about this point shortly.

Table VI.Constituents consumed per 1000℔ Live-Weight per Day, for Sustenance and for Milk-Production. The Rothamsted Herd of 30 Cows, Spring 1884.

Table 6.Constituents consumed per 1000 lbs Live Weight per Day, for Sustenance and for Milk Production. The Rothamsted Herd of 30 Cows, Spring 1884.

  Total
Dry
Substance.
Digestible.
Nitrogenous
Substance.
Non-
Nitrogenous
Substance
(as Starch).
Total
Nitrogenous
and Non-
Nitrogenous
Substance.
 
3.1 ℔ Cotton cake 2.76 1.07 1.50 2.57
2.7 ℔ Bran 2.33 0.33 1.09 1.42
2.8 ℔ Hay-chaff 2.34 0.15 1.18 1.33
5.6 ℔ Oat-straw-chaff 4.64 0.08 2.21 2.29
62.8 ℔ Mangel 7.85 1.01 5.73 6.74
  Total 19.92 2.64* 11.71* 14.35
Required for sustenance   0.57 7.40 7.97
Available for milk   2.07 4.31 6.38
In 23.3 ℔ milk   0.85 3.02 3.87
  Excess in food   1.22 1.29 2.51
Per 1000 ℔ Live-Weight.
 
Wolff 24 2.5 12.5** 15.4
* Albuminoid ratio, 1-4.4.
** Exclusive of 0.4 fat; albuminoid ratio, 1-5.4.

Attention may next be directed to the amounts of food, and of certain of its constituents, consumed for the production of a given amount of milk. This point is illustrated in Table VI., which shows the constituents consumed per 1000 ℔ live-weight per day in the case of the Rothamsted herd of 30 cows in the spring of 1884. On the left hand are shown the actual amounts of the different foods consumed per 1000 ℔ live-weight per day; and in the respective columns are recorded—first the amounts of total dry substance which the foods contained, and then the amounts of digestible nitrogenous, digestible non-nitrogenous (reckoned as starch), and digestible total organic substance which the different foods would supply; these being calculated according to Lawes and Gilbert’s own estimates of the percentage composition of the foods, and to Wolff’s estimates of the proportion of the several constituents which would be digestible.

Attention can now be focused on the quantities of food and certain nutrients consumed to produce a specific amount of milk. This is illustrated in Table VI., which shows the nutrients consumed per 1000 lbs of live weight per day for the Rothamsted herd of 30 cows in the spring of 1884. On the left, the actual amounts of various foods consumed per 1000 lbs of live weight per day are displayed; in the respective columns, the total dry matter contained in the foods is recorded, along with the amounts of digestible nitrogen, digestible non-nitrogen (counted as starch), and the total digestible organic matter supplied by the different foods. These figures are calculated based on Lawes and Gilbert’s estimates of the percentage composition of the foods and Wolff’s estimates of the digestibility of the various nutrients.

The first column shows that the amount of total dry substance of food actually consumed by the herd, per 1000 ℔ live-weight per day, was scarcely 20 ℔ whilst Wolff’s3 estimated requirement, as stated at the foot of the table, is 24 ℔. But his ration would doubtless consist to a greater extent of hay and straw-chaff, containing a larger proportion of indigestible and effete woody fibre. The figures show, indeed that the Rothamsted ration supplied, though nearly the same, even a somewhat less amount of total digestible constituents than Wolff’s.

The first column indicates that the total dry matter of food actually consumed by the herd, per 1000 pounds of live weight per day, was barely 20 pounds, while Wolff’s3 estimated requirement, noted at the bottom of the table, is 24 pounds. However, his ration would likely consist more of hay and straw-chaff, which contain a higher proportion of indigestible and useless woody fiber. The figures indeed show that the Rothamsted ration provided, although almost the same, even a slightly lower amount of total digestible nutrients than Wolff’s.

Of digestible nitrogen substance the food supplied 2.64 ℔ per day, whilst the amount estimated to be required for sustenance merely is 0.57 ℔; leaving, therefore, 2.07 ℔ available for milk production. The 23.3 ℔ of milk yielded per 1000 ℔ live-weight per day would, however, contain only 0.85 ℔; and there would thus remain an apparent excess of 1.22 ℔ of digestible nitrogenous substance in the food supplied. But against the amount of 2.64 ℔ actually consumed, Wolff’s estimate of the amount required for sustenance and for milk-production is 2.5 ℔, or but little less than the amount actually consumed at Rothamsted. On the assumption that the expenditure of nitrogenous substance in the production of milk is only in the formation of the nitrogenous substances of the milk, there would appear to have been a considerable excess given in the food. But Wolff’s estimate assumes no excess of supply, and that the whole is utilized; the fact being that he supposes the butter-fat of the milk to have been derived largely, if not wholly, from the albuminoids of the food.

The food provided 2.64 pounds of digestible nitrogen daily, while only 0.57 pounds is estimated to be needed for basic sustenance. This leaves 2.07 pounds available for milk production. However, the 23.3 pounds of milk produced per 1000 pounds of live weight per day would only contain 0.85 pounds, resulting in an apparent surplus of 1.22 pounds of digestible nitrogen in the food supplied. Wolff estimates that the total required for sustenance and milk production is 2.5 pounds, which is just slightly less than the actual consumption at Rothamsted. Assuming that the nitrogen in milk comes solely from the nitrogenous substances in the food, it seems there was a significant surplus. However, Wolff's estimate presumes there’s no excess in supply and that everything is utilized, suggesting he believes the butterfat in the milk mostly comes from the albuminoids in the food.

It has been shown that although it is possible that some of the fat of a fattening animal may be produced from the albuminoids of the food, certainly the greater part of it, if not the whole, is derived from the carbohydrates. But the physiological conditions of the production of milk are so different from those for the production of fattening increase, that it is not admissible to judge of the sources of the fat of the one from what may be established in regard to the other. It has been assumed, however, by those who maintain that the fat of the fattening animal is formed from albuminoids, that the fat of milk must be formed in the same way. Disallowing the legitimacy of such a deduction, there do, nevertheless, seem to be reasons for supposing that the fat of milk may, at any rate in large proportion, be derived from albuminoids.

It has been shown that while it’s possible some of the fat in a fattening animal comes from the proteins in its food, most of it, if not all, actually comes from carbohydrates. However, the biological processes for producing milk are so different from those for gaining fat that we can't really judge the fat sources for one based on what we know about the other. Still, those who argue that the fat in a fattening animal comes from proteins have assumed that the same applies to milk fat. While this assumption is not justified, there do seem to be reasons to believe that a significant portion of milk fat might indeed come from proteins.

Thus, as compared with fattening increase, which may in a sense be said to be little more than an accumulation of reserve material from excess of food, milk is a special product, of a special gland, for a special normal exigency of the animal. Further, whilst common experience shows that the herbivorous animal becomes the more fat the more, within certain limits, its food is rich in carbohydrates, it points to the conclusion that both the yield of milk and its richness in butter are more connected with a liberal supply of the nitrogenous constituents in the food. Obviously, so far as this is the case, it may be only that thereby more active change in the system, and therefore greater activity of the special function, is maintained. The evidence at command is, at any rate, not inconsistent with the supposition that a good deal of the fat of milk may have its source in the breaking up of albuminoids, but direct evidence on the point is still wanting; and supposing such breaking up to take place in the gland, the question arises—What becomes of the by-products? Assuming, however, that such change does take place, the amount of nitrogenous substance supplied to the Rothamsted cows would be less 743 in excess of the direct requirement for milk-production than the figures in the table would indicate, if, indeed, in excess at all.

Thus, compared to weight gain, which can be seen as just storing extra materials from eating too much, milk is a unique product created by a specific gland for a particular need of the animal. Additionally, while everyday experience shows that herbivorous animals become fatter when, within certain limits, their diet is rich in carbohydrates, it suggests that both milk production and its butterfat content are more closely linked to a plentiful supply of protein in the diet. Clearly, as this is the case, it may just be that a more active metabolism and enhanced function of the gland are maintained. The evidence available doesn’t contradict the idea that much of the fat in milk may come from breaking down proteins, but we still lack direct proof on this point; if such breakdown occurs in the gland, then the question is—what happens to the by-products? However, assuming that this change does happen, the amount of protein provided to the Rothamsted cows would be less 743 than what the table suggests in terms of what’s actually needed for milk production, if it’s in excess at all.

The figures in the column of Table VI. relating to the estimated amount of digestible non-nitrogenous substance reckoned as starch show that the quantity actually consumed was 11.71 ℔, whilst the amount estimated by Wolff to be required was 12.5 ℔, besides 0.4 ℔ of fat. The figures further show that, deducting 7.4 ℔ for sustenance from the quantity actually consumed, there would remain 4.31 ℔ available for milk-production, whilst only about 3.02 ℔ would be required supposing that both the fat of the milk and the sugar had been derived from the carbohydrates of the food; and, according to this calculation, there would still be an excess in the daily food of 1.29 ℔. It is to be borne in mind, however, that estimates of the requirement for mere sustenance are mainly founded on the results of experiments in which the animals are allowed only such a limited amount of food as will maintain them without either loss or gain when at rest. But physiological considerations point to the conclusion that the expenditure, independently of loss or gain, will be the greater the more liberal the ration, and hence it is probable that the real excess, if any, over that required for sustenance and milk-production would be less than that indicated in the table, which is calculated on the assumption of a fixed requirement for sustenance for a given live-weight of the animal. Supposing that there really was any material excess of either the nitrogenous or the non-nitrogenous constituents supplied over the requirement for sustenance and milk-production, the question arises—Whether, or to what extent, it conduced to increase in live-weight of the animals, or whether it was in part, or wholly, voided, and so wasted.

The numbers in the column of Table VI related to the estimated amount of digestible non-nitrogenous substance classified as starch indicate that the quantity actually consumed was 11.71 lbs, while Wolff estimated that 12.5 lbs were needed, plus 0.4 lbs of fat. The data also show that, after deducting 7.4 lbs for basic sustenance from the quantity actually consumed, 4.31 lbs would be left for milk production, while only about 3.02 lbs would be needed if both the fat in the milk and the sugar came from the carbohydrates in the food. According to this calculation, there would be an excess of 1.29 lbs in the daily food. However, it's important to note that the estimates for basic sustenance are primarily based on experiments where animals are given just enough food to maintain their weight without any gain or loss while at rest. But physiological factors suggest that the amount of energy expended, regardless of any gain or loss, increases with a more generous food supply. Therefore, it’s likely that the actual excess, if there is one, beyond what is needed for sustenance and milk production, would be less than what the table indicates, which is based on a fixed requirement for sustenance given the animal's weight. Assuming there truly was a significant excess of either nitrogenous or non-nitrogenous components beyond what was needed for sustenance and milk production, the question arises—did it contribute to an increase in the animals' weight, or was it partially or completely wasted?

Table VII.—Percentage Composition of Milk each Month of the Year; also Average Yield of Milk, and of Constituents, per Head per Day each Month, according to Rothamsted Dairy Records.

Table VII.—Percentage Composition of Milk each Month of the Year; also Average Yield of Milk, and of Constituents, per Head per Day each Month, according to Rothamsted Dairy Records.

  Average Composition of Milk each
Month, 1884.
(Dr Vieth—14,235 analyses.)
Rothamsted Diary.
Average
Yield
of Milk
per Head
per Day,
6 Years.
Estimated Quantity
of Constituents in
Milk per Head per
Day each Month.
Specific
Gravity.
Butter-
Fat.
Solids
not
Fat.
Total
Solids.
Butter-
Fat.
Solids
not
Fat.
Total
Solids.
    % % %
January 1.0325 3.55 9.34 12.89 20.31* 0.72 1.90 2.62
February 1.0325 3.53 9.24 12.77 22.81 0.80 2.11 2.91
March 1.0323 3.50 9.22 12.72 24.19 0.85 2.23 3.08
April 1.0323 3.43 9.22 12.65 26.50 0.91 2.44 3.35
May 1.0324 3.34 9.30 12.64 31.31 1.05 2.91 3.96
June 1.0323 3.31 9.19 12.50 30.81 1.02 2.83 3.85
July 1.0319 3.47 9.13 12.60 28.00 0.97 2.56 3.53
August 1.0318 3.87 9.08 12.95 25.00 0.97 2.27 3.24
September 1.0321 4.11 9.17 13.28 22.94 0.94 2.11 3.05
October 1.0324 4.26 9.27 13.53 21.00 0.89 1.95 2.84
November 1.0324 4.36 9.29 13.65 19.19 0.84 1.78 2.62
December 1.0326 4.10 9.29 13.39 19.31 0.79 1.79 2.58
Mean 1.0323 3.74 9.22 12.96 24.28 0.90 2.24 3.14
* Average over five years only, as the records did not commence until February 1884.

As regards the influence of the period of the year, with its characteristic changes of food, on the quantity and composition of the milk, the first column of the second division of Table VII. shows the average yield of milk per head per day of the Rothamsted herd, averaging about 42 cows, almost exclusively Shorthorns, in each month of the year, over six years, 1884 to 1889 inclusive; and the succeeding columns show that amounts of butter-fat, of solids not fat, and of total solids in the average yield per head per day in each month of the year, calculated, not according to direct analytical determinations made at Rothamsted, but according to the results of more than 14,000 analyses made, under the superintendence of Dr Vieth, in the laboratory of the Aylesbury Dairy Company in 1884;4 the samples analysed representing the milk from a great many different farms in each month.

As for how the time of year and its typical food changes affect the amount and quality of milk, the first column of the second part of Table VII shows the average daily milk yield per cow from the Rothamsted herd, which had about 42 mostly Shorthorn cows, for each month of the year over six years, from 1884 to 1889. The following columns display the amounts of butterfat, solids not fat, and total solids in the average daily yield per cow for each month, calculated not from direct tests done at Rothamsted, but based on the results of more than 14,000 analyses conducted under the supervision of Dr. Vieth at the Aylesbury Dairy Company lab in 1884; the samples analyzed represented milk from many different farms each month.

It should be stated that the Rothamsted cows had cake throughout the year; at first 4 ℔ per head per day, but afterwards graduated according to the yield of milk, on the basis of 4 ℔ for a yield of 28 ℔ of milk, the result being that then the amount given averaged more per head per day during the grazing period, but less earlier and later in the year. Bran, hay and straw-chaff, and roots (generally mangel), were also given when the animals were not turned out to grass. The general plan was, therefore, to give cake alone in addition when the cows were turned out to grass, but some other dry food, and roots, when entirely in the shed during the winter and early spring months.

It should be noted that the Rothamsted cows received cake all year round; initially, it was 4 lbs per head per day, but later it was adjusted based on milk production, starting with 4 lbs for producing 28 lbs of milk. As a result, the average amount given per head per day was higher during the grazing period, but less in the earlier and later parts of the year. When the animals were not out grazing, they were also given bran, hay, straw-chaff, and roots (usually mangel). The general approach was to provide cake alone in addition to grass when the cows were out grazing, while offering some other dry food and roots when they were kept indoors during the winter and early spring months.

Referring to the column showing the average yield of milk per head per day each month over the six years, it will be seen that during the six months January, February, September, October, November and December the average yield was sometimes below 20 ℔ and on the average only about 21 ℔ of milk per head per day; whilst over the other six months it averaged 27.63 ℔, and over May and June more than 31 ℔ per head per day. That is to say, the quantity of milk yielded was considerably greater during the grazing period than when the animals had more dry food, and roots instead of grass.

Looking at the column that shows the average daily milk yield per animal for each month over the six years, it's clear that during the months of January, February, September, October, November, and December, the average yield was sometimes below 20 lbs and averaged only about 21 lbs of milk per animal per day. In contrast, during the other six months, it averaged 27.63 lbs, with May and June seeing more than 31 lbs per animal per day. This means that the amount of milk produced was significantly higher during the grazing season compared to when the animals were fed more dry food and roots instead of grass.

Next, referring to the particulars of composition, according to Dr Vieth’s results, which may well be considered as typical for the different periods of the year, it is seen that the specific gravity of the milk was only average, or lower than average, during the grazing period, but rather higher in the earlier and later months of the year. The percentage of total solids was rather lower than the average at the beginning of the year, lowest during the chief grazing months, but considerably higher in the later months of the year, when the animals were kept in the shed and received more dry food. The percentage of butter-fat follows very closely that of the total solids, being the lowest during the best grazing months, but considerably higher than the average during the last four or five months of the year, when more dry food was given. The percentage of solids not fat was considerably the lowest during the later months of the grazing period, but average, or higher than average, during the earlier and later months of the year. It may be observed that, according to the average percentages given in the table, a gallon of milk will contain more of both total solids and of butter-fat in the later months of the year; that is, when there is less grass and more dry food given.

Next, looking at the specifics of composition, based on Dr. Vieth's findings, which can be seen as typical for various times of the year, it's noted that the specific gravity of the milk was average or below average during the grazing period, but higher in the earlier and later months. The percentage of total solids was somewhat lower than average at the beginning of the year, reached the lowest point during the main grazing months, but rose significantly in the later months when the animals were kept in the shed and fed more dry food. The percentage of butterfat closely mirrors that of the total solids, being lowest during the best grazing months and much higher than average in the last four or five months of the year when more dry feed was provided. The percentage of solids not fat was considerably lower during the later months of the grazing period but was average or higher than average during the earlier and later months of the year. It can be observed that, based on the average percentages shown in the table, a gallon of milk will have more total solids and butterfat in the later months of the year, meaning when there is less grass and more dry feed is given.

Turning to the last three columns of the table, it is seen that although, as has been shown, the percentage of the several constituents in the milk is lower during the grazing months, the actual amounts contained in the quantity of milk yielded per head are distinctly greater during those months. Thus, the amount of butter-fat yielded per head per day is above the average of the year from April to September inclusive; the amounts of solids not fat are over average from April to August inclusive; and the amounts of total solids yielded are average, or over average, from April to August inclusive.

Looking at the last three columns of the table, it's clear that even though, as previously shown, the percentage of various components in the milk is lower during the grazing months, the actual amounts in the milk produced per animal are noticeably higher during those months. Therefore, the amount of butterfat produced per animal per day is above the yearly average from April to September, and the amounts of solid non-fat components are above average from April to August. The total solids produced are at or above average from April to August.

From the foregoing results it is evident that the quantity of milk yielded per head is very much the greater during the grazing months of the year, but that the percentage composition of the milk is lower during that period of higher yield, and considerably higher during the months of more exclusively dry-food feeding. Nevertheless, owing to the much greater quantity of milk yielded during the grazing months, the actual quantity of constituents yielded per Cow is greater during those months than during the months of higher percentage composition but lower yield of milk per head. It may be added that a careful consideration of the number of 744 newly-calved cows brought into the herd each month shows that the results as above stated were perfectly distinct, independently of any influence of the period of lactation of the different individuals of the herd.

From the results above, it’s clear that the amount of milk produced per cow is significantly higher during the grazing months of the year. However, the milk's percentage composition is lower during this period of higher production and much higher during the months when feeding is primarily dry food. Despite this, due to the much larger volume of milk produced during the grazing months, the actual quantity of nutrients produced per cow is higher during these months compared to the months with a higher percentage composition but lower milk yield per cow. It’s also important to note that a careful look at the number of newly-calved cows added to the herd each month shows that the results mentioned above were clearly distinct, regardless of the lactation stage of the different cows in the herd.

The few results which have been brought forward in relation to milk-production are admittedly quite insufficient adequately to illustrate the influence of variation in the quantity and composition of the food on the quantity and composition of the milk yielded. Indeed, owing to the intrinsic difficulties of experimenting on such a subject, involving so many elements of variation, any results obtained have to be interpreted with much care and reservation. Nevertheless, it may be taken as clearly indicated that, within certain limits, high feeding, and especially high nitrogenous feeding, does increase both the yield and the richness of the milk.5 But it is evident that when high feeding is pushed beyond a comparatively limited range, the tendency is to increase the weight of the animal—that is, to favour the development of the individual, rather than to enhance the activity of the functions connected with the reproductive system. This is, of course, a disadvantage when the object is to maintain the milk-yielding condition of the animal; but when a cow is to be fattened off it will be otherwise.

The few results that have been presented regarding milk production are clearly insufficient to effectively demonstrate how changes in the amount and composition of feed affect the quantity and composition of the milk produced. Due to the inherent challenges of conducting experiments on this topic, which involves many variables, any findings must be approached with caution and skepticism. However, it is evident that, within certain limits, providing a rich diet, especially one high in nitrogen, can increase both the yield and quality of the milk.5 It is clear that if the feeding is taken beyond a relatively narrow range, the focus tends to shift towards increasing the animal's weight—supporting the individual’s growth instead of boosting the functions related to the reproductive system. This can be a drawback when the goal is to maintain the cow's milk production; however, it can be beneficial when the intention is to fatten the cow.

It has been stated that, early in the period of six years in which the Rothamsted results that have been quoted were obtained, the amount of oil-cake given was graduated according to the yield of milk of each individual cow; as it seemed unreasonable that an animal yielding, say, only 4 quarts per day, should receive, beside the home foods, as much cake as one yielding several times the quantity. The obvious inference is, that any excess of food beyond that required for sustenance and milk-production would tend to increase the weight of the animal, which, according to the circumstances, may or may not be desirable.

It has been noted that, during the first six years in which the Rothamsted results have been cited, the amount of oil-cake given was adjusted based on the milk yield of each cow. It seemed unreasonable for an animal producing, say, only 4 quarts a day to receive, in addition to its regular feed, as much cake as one producing several times that amount. The clear conclusion is that any extra food beyond what is needed for maintenance and milk production would likely lead to an increase in the animal's weight, which, depending on the situation, may or may not be a good thing.

It may be observed that direct experiments at Rothamsted confirm the view, arrived at by common experience, that roots, and especially mangel, have a favourable effect on the flow of milk. Further, the Rothamsted experiments have shown that a higher percentage of butter-fat, of other solids, and of total solids, was obtained with mangel than with silage as the succulent food. The yield of milk was, however, in a much greater degree increased by grazing than by any other change in the food; and at Rothamsted the influence of roots comes next in order to that of grass, though far behind it, in this respect. But with grazing, as has been shown, the percentage composition of the milk is considerably reduced; though, owing to the greatly increased quantity yielded, the amount of soil-constituents removed in the milk when cows are grazing may nevertheless be greater per head per day than under any other conditions. Lastly, it has been clearly illustrated how very much greater is the demand upon the food, especially for nitrogenous and for mineral constituents, in the production of milk than in that of fattening increase.

It can be observed that direct experiments at Rothamsted confirm the general belief that roots, especially mangel, positively affect milk production. Furthermore, the Rothamsted experiments have shown that a higher percentage of butterfat, other solids, and total solids was obtained with mangel compared to silage as the succulent feed. However, milk yield was significantly increased by grazing more than by any other dietary changes; at Rothamsted, the effect of roots ranks just below that of grass, though it is still much less impactful in this regard. Nevertheless, as shown, the percentage composition of the milk is considerably lower with grazing, but due to the significantly increased quantity produced, the total amount of soil nutrients removed in the milk when cows are grazing may be greater per cow per day than under any other conditions. Finally, it has been clearly demonstrated how much greater the demand on feed, particularly for nitrogen and minerals, is for producing milk compared to promoting weight gain.

Manurial Value of Food consumed in the Production of Milk

Manure Value of Food Used in Milk Production

In any attempt to estimate the average value of the manure derived from the consumption of food for the production of milk, the difficulty arising from the very wide variation in the amount of milk yielded by different cows, or by the same cow at different periods of her lactation, is increased by the inadequate character of information concerning the difference in the amount of the food actually consumed by the animal coincidently with the production of such different amounts of milk. But although information is lacking for correlating, with numerical accuracy, the great difference in milk-yield of individual cows with the coincident differences in consumption to produce it, it may be considered as satisfactorily established that more food is consumed by a herd of cows to produce a fair yield of milk, of say 10 or 12 quarts per head per day, than by an equal live-weight of oxen fed to produce fattening increase. In the cases supposed it may, for practical purposes, be assumed that the cows would consume about one-fourth more food than the oxen. Accordingly, in the Rothamsted estimates of the value of the manure obtained on the consumption of food for the production of milk, it is assumed that one-fourth more will be consumed by 1000 ℔ live-weight of cows than by the same weight of oxen; but the estimates of the amounts of the constituents of the food removed in the milk, or remaining for manure, are nevertheless reckoned per ton of each kind of food consumed, as in the case of those relating to feeding for the production of fattening increase. It may be added that the calculations of the amounts of the constituents in the milk are based on the same average composition of milk as is adopted in the construction of Table V. Thus the nitrogen is taken at 0.579 (= 3.65 nitrogenous substance)%, the phosphoric acid at 0.2175%, and the potash at 0.1875% in the milk.

In any attempt to estimate the average value of the manure produced from the food consumed for milk production, the challenge posed by the significant variation in the amount of milk produced by different cows, or even by the same cow at different times during its lactation, is made even harder by the inadequate information on how much food each animal actually consumes while producing varying amounts of milk. However, even though we lack precise data to correlate the significant differences in milk production among individual cows with the corresponding differences in their food intake, it is generally accepted that a herd of cows consumes more food to produce a reasonable yield of milk, around 10 or 12 quarts per cow per day, than the same weight of oxen fed for fattening purposes. For practical estimates, it can be assumed that cows will consume about 25% more food than oxen. Therefore, in the Rothamsted estimates of the manure value resulting from food eaten for milk production, it is assumed that a thousand pounds of live-weight of cows will consume 25% more than the same weight of oxen. However, the estimates of the amounts of the nutrients in the food removed in the milk or left for manure are still calculated per ton of each type of food consumed, just like those for feeding aimed at fattening. It should also be noted that the calculations for the nutrient levels in the milk are based on the same average milk composition used in Table V. Thus, nitrogen is taken at 0.579 (3.65% nitrogenous substance), phosphoric acid at 0.2175%, and potash at 0.1875% in the milk.

Table VIII. shows in detail the estimate of the amount of nitrogen in one ton of each food, and in the milk produced from its consumption, on the assumption of an average yield of 10 quarts per head per day; also the amount remaining for manure, the amount of ammonia corresponding to the nitrogen, and the value of the ammonia at 4d. per ℔. Similar particulars are also given in relation to the phosphoric acid and the potash consumed in the food, removed in the milk, and remaining for manure, &c. This table will serve as a sufficient illustration of the mode of estimating the total or original value of the manure, derived from the consumption of the different foods for the production of milk in the case supposed; that is, assuming an average yield of a herd of 10 quarts per head per day.

Table VIII. provides a detailed estimate of the amount of nitrogen in one ton of each food and in the milk produced from its consumption, based on an average yield of 10 quarts per head per day. It also shows the amount left for manure, the corresponding ammonia amount linked to the nitrogen, and the ammonia value at 4d. per lb. Similar details are provided for the phosphoric acid and potash consumed in the food, which is removed in the milk, and what remains for manure, etc. This table will serve as a clear example of how to estimate the total or original value of the manure derived from consuming different foods for milk production in the given scenario; that is, assuming an average yield of 10 quarts per head per day for the herd.

In Table IX. are given the results of similar detailed calculations of the total or original manure-value (as in Table VIII. for 10 quarts), on the alternative assumptions of a yield of 6, 8, 12 or 14 quarts per head per day. For comparison there is also given, in the first column, the estimate of the total or original manure-value when the foods are consumed for the production of fattening increase.

In Table IX, the results of similar detailed calculations of the total or original manure-value (like in Table VIII for 10 quarts) are shown, based on different assumptions of a yield of 6, 8, 12, or 14 quarts per head per day. For comparison, the first column also includes an estimate of the total or original manure-value when the food is used for producing fattening increases.

So much for the plan and results of the estimations of total or original manure-value of the different foods, that is, deducting only the constituents removed in the milk, and reckoning the remainder at the prices at which they can be purchased in artificial manures. With a view to direct application to practice, however, it is necessary to estimate the unexhausted manure-value of the different foods, or what may be called their compensation-value, after they have been used for a series of years by the outgoing tenant and he has realized a certain portion of the manure-value in his increased crops. In the calculations for this purpose the rule is to deduct one-half of the original manure-value of the food used the last year, and one-third of the remainder each year to the eighth, in the case of all the more concentrated foods and of the roots—in fact, of all the foods in the list excepting the hays and the straws. For these, which contain larger amounts of indigestible matter, and the constituents of which will be more slowly available to crops, two-thirds of the original manure-value is deducted for the last year, and only 745 one-fifth from year to year to the eighth year back. The results of the estimates of compensation-value so made are given for the five yields of 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 quarts of milk per head per day respectively in Lawes and Gilbert’s paper6 on the valuation of the manures obtained by the consumption of foods for the production of milk, which may be consulted for fuller details. It must, however, be borne in mind that when cows are fed in sheds or yards the manure is generally liable to greater losses than is the case with fattening oxen. The manure of the cow contains much more water in proportion to solid matter than that of the ox. Water will, besides, frequently be used for washing, and it may be that a good deal of the manure is washed into drains and lost. In the event, therefore, of a claim for compensation, the management and disposal of the manure requires the attention of the valuer. Indeed, the varying circumstances that will arise in practice must be carefully considered. Bearing these in mind, the estimates may be accepted as at any rate the best approximation to the truth that existing knowledge provides; and they should be found sufficient for the requirements of practical use. Obviously they will be more directly applicable in the case of cows feeding entirely on the foods enumerated in the list, and not depending largely on grass; but, even when the animals are partially grass-fed, the value of the manure derived from the additional dry food or roots may be estimated according to the scale given.

So much for the plan and the results of estimating the total or original manure value of different feeds, meaning we only deduct the nutrients removed in the milk and evaluate the rest at the prices for which they can be bought as artificial fertilizers. However, to apply this directly to practice, we need to assess the unexhausted manure value of these feeds, or what we can refer to as their compensation value, after they have been used for several years by the previous tenant, who has already benefited from a portion of their manure value through increased crop yields. For these calculations, the rule is to deduct half of the original manure value of the feed used in the last year and one-third of the remainder for each of the following years up to the eighth, for all the more concentrated feeds and roots—in fact, for all the feeds on the list except the hays and straws. For those, which have larger amounts of indigestible matter and whose nutrients become available to crops more slowly, we deduct two-thirds of the original manure value for the last year and only one-fifth each year back up to the eighth year. The results of these compensation value estimates are provided for five yields of 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 quarts of milk per dairy cow per day, respectively, in Lawes and Gilbert’s paper 6 on the valuation of manures obtained from feeding foods for milk production, which can be consulted for more details. However, it's important to remember that when cows are kept in sheds or yards, their manure usually experiences greater losses compared to that of fattening oxen. Cow manure has a much higher water content relative to solid matter than ox manure. Additionally, water is often used for washing, and a significant amount of the manure might be washed away into drains and lost. Therefore, in the case of a compensation claim, the management and disposal of the manure need to be given special attention by the appraiser. In fact, the various circumstances that may arise in practice must be considered carefully. Keeping these in mind, the estimates can be regarded as at least the best approximation to the truth that current knowledge offers; and they should be sufficient for practical use. Clearly, they will be more directly applicable to cows that are fed entirely on the foods listed and not heavily reliant on grass; however, even when the animals have a partial grass diet, the manure value derived from the additional dry food or roots can be estimated according to the provided scale.

Table VIII.Estimates of the Total or Original Manure-Value of Cattle Foods after Consumption by Cows for the Production of Milk. Valuation on the assumption of an average production by a herd of 10 quarts of milk per head per day.

Table 8.Estimates of the Total or Original Manure-Value of Cattle Foods after Consumption by Cows for Milk Production. Valuation based on an average output of 10 quarts of milk per cow per day.

Nos. Description
of Food.
Nitrogen. Phosphoric Acid. Potash. Total or
Original
Manure-
Value
per Ton
of Food
consumed.
In
1 Ton
of
Food.
In
Milk
from
1 Ton
of
Food.
In Manure. In
1 Ton
of
Food.
In
Milk
from
1 Ton
of
Food.
In Manure. In
1 Ton
of
Food.
In
Milk
from
1 Ton
of
Food.
In Manure.
Total
remaining
for
Manure.
Nitrogen
equal
Ammonia.
Value of
Ammonia
at 4 d.
per ℔.
Total
remaining
for
Manure.
Value
at 2 d.
per ℔.
Total
remaining
for
Manure.
Value
at 1½ d.
per ℔.
    £ s. d. s. d. s. d. £ s. d.
1 Linseed 80.64 25.04 55.60 67.52 1 2 6 34.50 9.34 25.16 4 2 30.69 8.02 22.67 2 10 1 9 6
2 Linseed cake 106.40 20.86 85.54 103.87 1 14 7 44.80 7.79 37.01 6 2 31.36 6.71 24.65 3 1 2 3 10
3 Decorticated
cotton cake
147.84 19.27 128.57 156.13 2 12 1 69.44 7.18 62.26 10 5 44.80 6.22 38.58 4 10 3 7 4
4 Palm-nut cake 56.00 17.86 38.14 46.31 0 15 5 26.88 6.68 20.20 3 4 11.20 5.73 5.47 0 8 0 19 5
5 Undecorticated
cotton cake
84.00 15.66 68.34 82.99 1 7 8 44.80 5.85 38.95 6 6 44.80 5.07 39.73 5 0 1 19 2
6 Cocoanut cake 76.16 15.66 60.50 73.47 1 4 6 31.36 5.85 25.51 4 3 44.80 5.07 39.73 5 0 1 13 9
7 Rape cake 109.76 12.50 97.26 118.11 1 19 4 56.00 4.69 51.31 8 7 33.60 4.09 29.51 3 8 2 11 7
8 Peas 80.64 17.86 62.78 76.24 1 5 5 19.04 6.68 12.36 2 1 21.50 5.73 15.77 2 0 1 9 6
9 Beans 89.60 17.86 71.74 87.12 1 9 0 24.64| 6.68 17.96 3 0 29.12 5.73 23.39 2 11 1 14 11
10 Lentils 94.08 17.86 76.22 92.56 1 10 10 16.80 6.68 10.12 1 8 15.68 5.73 9.95 1 3 1 13 9
11 Tares (seed) 94.08 17.86 76.22 92.56 1 10 10 17.92 6.68 11.24 1 10 17.92 5.73 12.19 1 6 1 14 2
12 Maize 38.08 17.38 20.70 25.14 0 8 5 13.44 6.50 6.94 1 2 8.29 5.56 2.73 0 4 0 9 11
13 Wheat 40.32 17.38 22.94 27.86 0 9 3 19.04 6.50 12.54 2 1 11.87 5.56 6.31 0 9 0 12 1
14 Malt 38.08 17.86 20.22 24.55 0 8 2 17.92 6.68 11.24 1 10 11.20 5.73 5.47 0 8 0 10 8
15 Barley 36.96 17.38 19.58 23.78 0 7 11 16.80 6.50 10.30 1 9 12.32 5.56 6.76 0 10 0 10 6
16 Oats 44.80 16.68 28.12 34.15 0 11 5 13.44 6.24 7.20 1 2 11.20 5.40 5.80 0 9 0 13 4
17 Rice meal 42.56 16.68 25.88 31.43 0 10 6 (13.44) 6.24 7.20 1 2 (8.29) 5.40 2.89 0 4 0 12 0
18 Locust beans 26.88 13.90 12.98 15.76 0 5 3 .. 5.19 .. .. .. 4.42 .. .. ..
19 Malt coombs 87.36 15.66 71.70 87.07 1 9 0 44.80 5.85 38.95 6 6 44.80 5.07 39.73 5 0 2 0 6
20 Fine pollard 54.88 16.68 38.20 46.39 0 15 6 64.96 6.24 58.72 9 9 32.70 5.40 27.30 3 5 1 8 8
21 Coarse pollard 56.00 15.66 40.34 48.99 0 16 4 78.40 5.85 72.55 12 1 33.60 5.07 28.53 3 7 1 12 0
22 Bran 56.00 13.90 42.10 51.12 0 17 0 80.64 5.19 75.45 12 7 32.48 4.42 28.06 3 6 1 13 1
23 Clover hay 53.76 8.94 44.82 54.43 0 18 2 12.77 3.35 9.42 1 7 33.60 2.94 30.66 3 10 1 3 7
24 Meadow hay 33.60 8.36 25.24 30.65 0 10 3 8.96 3.10 5.86 1 0 35.84 2.62 33.22 4 2 0 15 5
25 Pea straw 22.40 7.83 14.57 17.69 0 5 11 7.84 2.91 4.93 0 10 22.40 2.46 19.94 2 6 0 9 3
26 Oat straw 11.20 6.95 4.25 5.16 0 1 9 5.38 2.60 2.78 0 6 22.40 2.29 20.11 2 6 0 4 9
27 Wheat straw 10.08 5.98 4.10 4.98 0 1 8 5.38 2.23 3.15 0 6 17.92 1.96 15.96 2 0 0 4 2
28 Barley straw 8.96 5.46 3.50 4.25 0 1 5 4.03 2.04 1.99 0 4 22.40 1.80 20.60 2 7 0 4 4
29 Bean straw 20.16 5.68 14.48 17.58 0 5 10 6.72 2.14 4.58 0 9 22.40 1.80 20.60 2 7 0 9 2
30 Potatoes 5.60 2.07 3.53 4.29 0 1 5 3.36 0.78 2.58 0 5 12.32 0.66 11.66 1 5 0 3 3
31 Carrots 4.48 1.46 3.02 3.67 0 1 3 2.02 0.54 1.48 0 3 6.27 0.49 5.78 0 9 0 2 3
32 Parsnips 4.93 1.67 3.26 3.96 0 1 4 4.26 0.63 3.63 0 7 8.06 0.49 7.57 0 11 0 2 10
33 Mangel wurzels 4.93 1.32 3.61 4.38 0 1 6 1.57 0.49 1.08 0 2 8.96 0.49 8.47 1 1 0 2 9
34 Swedish turnips 5.60 1.14 4.46 5.42 0 1 10 1.34 0.44 0.90 0 2 4.93 0.33 4.60 0 7 0 2 7
35 Yellow turnips 4.48 0.93 3.55 4.31 0 1 5 1.34 0.34 1.00 0 2 4.93 0.33 (4.60) 0 7 0 2 2
36 White turnips 4.03 0.84 3.19 3.87 0 1 3 1.12 0.31 0.81 0 2 6.72 0.33 6.39 0 10 0 2 3

Cheese and Cheese-Making

Cheese and Cheesemaking

For generations, perhaps for centuries, the question has been discussed as to why there should be so large a proportion of bad and inferior cheese and so small a proportion of really good cheese made in farmhouses throughout the land. That the result is not wholly due to skill and care or to the absence of these qualities on the part of the dairymaid may now be taken for granted. Instances might be quoted in which the most painstaking of dairymaids, in the cleanest of dairies, have failed to produce cheese of even second-rate quality and character, and yet others in which excellent cheese has been made under commonplace 746 conditions as to skill and equipment, and with not much regard to cleanliness in the dairy. The explanation of what was so long a mystery has been found in the domain of ferments. It is now known that whilst various micro-organisms, which in many dairies have free access to the milk, have ruined an incalculable quantity of cheese—and of butter also—neither cheese nor butter of first-rate quality can be made without the aid of lactic acid bacilli. As an illustrative case, mention may be made of that of two most painstaking dairymaids who had tried in vain to make good cheese from the freshest of milk in the cleanest of dairies in North Lancashire. Advice to resort to the use of the ferment was acted upon, and the result was a revelation and a transformation, excellent prize-winning cheese being made from that time forward. By the addition of a “starter,” in the form of a small quantity of sour milk, whey or buttermilk, in an advanced stage of fermentation, the development of acidity in the main body of milk is accelerated. It has been ascertained that the starter is practically a culture of bacteria, which, if desired, may be obtained as a pure culture. Professor J. R. Campbell, as the result of experiments on pure cultures for Cheddar cheese-making, states7 that (1) first-class Cheddar cheese can be made by using pure cultures of a lactic organism; (2) this organism abounds in all samples of sour milk and sour whey; (3) the use of a whey starter is attended with results equal in every respect to those obtained from a milk-starter. It is well within the power of any dairyman to prepare what is practically a pure culture of the same bacterium as is supplied from the laboratory. Moreover, the sour-whey starter used by some of the successful cheese-makers before the introduction of the American system is in effect a pure culture, from which it follows that these men had, by empirical methods, attained the same end as that to which bacteriological research subsequently led. Wherever a starter is necessary, the use of a culture practically pure is imperative, whether such culture be obtained from the laboratory or prepared by what may be called the “home-made starter.” Pure cultures may be bought for a few shillings in the open market.

For generations, maybe even centuries, people have debated why there's such a large amount of poor-quality cheese being made in farmhouses across the country, while genuinely good cheese is so rare. It's now generally accepted that this outcome isn't solely due to the skill or care of the dairymaids, or the lack of these qualities. There are examples of the most diligent dairymaids working in spotless dairies who still couldn’t produce even average quality cheese, alongside others who’ve produced excellent cheese under pretty ordinary conditions with minimal focus on cleanliness. The long-standing mystery has been solved in the realm of fermentation. It's now understood that while various microorganisms, which often have easy access to the milk in many dairies, have spoiled countless amounts of cheese—and butter too—neither high-quality cheese nor butter can be made without the help of lactic acid bacteria. For instance, two dedicated dairymaids in North Lancashire struggled to make good cheese from the freshest milk in the cleanest environment. After being advised to use a ferment, the results were groundbreaking, leading to them producing excellent prize-winning cheese from then on. By adding a “starter,” like a small amount of sour milk, whey, or buttermilk in a more developed stage of fermentation, the acidity in the main milk is accelerated. It's been found that the starter is essentially a culture of bacteria, which can be obtained as a pure culture if needed. Professor J. R. Campbell, following experiments on pure cultures in Cheddar cheese-making, states that (1) first-class Cheddar cheese can be made using pure cultures of a lactic organism; (2) this organism is abundant in all samples of sour milk and sour whey; (3) using a whey starter yields results equal to those from a milk starter. Any dairyman can easily prepare what is essentially a pure culture of the same bacteria available from a lab. Additionally, the sour-whey starter used by some successful cheese-makers prior to the American system essentially functions as a pure culture. This means they achieved the same results through practical methods that later bacteriological research confirmed. Whenever a starter is needed, using a nearly pure culture is essential, whether it's sourced from a lab or made as a “home-made starter.” Pure cultures can be purchased for just a few shillings on the open market.

Table IX.Comparison of the Estimates of Total or Original Manure-Value when Foods are consumed for the Production of Fattening Increase, with those when the Food is consumed by Cows giving different Yields of Milk.

Table 9.Comparison of the Estimates of Total or Original Manure-Value when Foods are consumed for the Production of Fattening Increase, with those when the Food is consumed by Cows producing different Yields of Milk.

Nos. Description
of Food.
Total or Original Manure-Value per Ton of Food
consumed—that is, only deducting the Constituents
in Fattening Increase or in Milk.
For the
Production
of
Fattening
Increase.
For the Production of Milk, supposing
the Yield per Head per Day to be as under—
6 qts. 8 qts. 10 qts. 12 qts. 14 qts.
    £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.
1 Linseed 1 19 2 1 14 7 1 12 0 1 9 6 1 7 1 1 4 5
2 Linseed cake 2 11 11 2 8 1 2 6 0 2 3 10 2 1 9 1 19 8
3 Decorticated cotton cake 3 14 9 3 11 2 3 9 2 3 7 4 3 5 4 3 3 4
4 Palm-nut cake 1 6 4 1 3 2 1 1 4 0 19 5 0 17 9 0 15 11
5 Undecorticated cotton cake 2 5 3 2 2 4 2 0 8 1 19 2 1 17 6 1 15 11
6 Cocoa-nut cake 1 19 10 1 16 11 1 15 3 1 13 9 1 12 3 1 10 6
7 Rape cake 2 16 5 1 14 2 2 12 11 2 11 7 2 10 4 2 9 1
8 Peas 1 16 5 1 13 1 1 11 2 1 9 6 1 7 8 1 5 9
9 Beans 2 1 11 1 18 7 1 16 10 1 14 11 1 13 1 1 11 4
10 Lentils 2 0 8 1 17 5 1 15 7 1 13 9 1 12 2 1 10 1
11 Tares (seed) 2 1 1 1 17 11 1 16 0 1 14 2 1 12 6 1 10 7
12 Maize 0 16 7 0 13 4 0 11 7 0 9 11 0 8 1 0 6 5
13 Wheat 0 18 11 0 15 8 0 13 11 0 12 1 0 10 5 0 8 8
14 Malt 0 17 7 0 14 5 0 12 7 0 10 8 0 9 0 0 7 1
15 Barley 0 17 2 0 14 0 0 12 3 0 10 6 0 8 8 0 6 11
16 Oats 0 19 9 0 16 8 0 15 0 0 13 4 0 11 7 0 9 10
17 Rice meal (0 18 6) 0 15 5 0 13 9 0 12 0 0 10 5 0 8 7
18 Locust beans .. .. .. .. .. ..
19 Malt coombs 2 6 7 2 3 9 2 2 0 2 0 6 1 18 11 1 17 4
20 Fine pollard 1 15 2 1 12 0 1 10 5 1 8 8 1 6 11 1 5 3
21 Coarse pollard 1 18 1 1 15 2 1 13 6 1 12 0 1 10 5 1 8 9
22 Bran 1 18 6 1 15 11 1 14 6 1 13 1 1 11 8 1 10 3
23 Clover hay 1 7 0 1 5 5 1 4 5 1 3 7 1 2 8 1 1 8
24 Meadow hay 0 18 7 0 17 0 0 16 3 0 15 5 0 14 5 0 13 7
25 Pea straw 0 12 2 0 10 9 0 10 0 0 9 3 0 8 5 0 7 8
26 Oat straw 0 7 5 0 6 2 0 5 5 0 4 9 0 4 0 0 3 3
27 Wheat straw 0 6 6 0 5 5 0 4 10 0 4 2 0 3 6 0 3 0
28 Barley straw 0 6 5 0 5 6 0 4 10 0 4 4 0 3 9 0 3 2
29 Bean straw 0 11 5 0 10 4 0 9 9 0 9 2 0 8 7 0 8 0
30 Potatoes 0 4 1 0 3 9 0 3 6 0 3 3 0 3 1 0 2 11
31 Carrots 0 2 9 0 2 6 0 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 1 0 1 11
32 Parsnips 0 3 6 0 3 3 0 3 1 0 2 10 0 2 8 0 2 7
33 Mangel wurzels 0 3 2 0 3 0 0 2 10 0 2 9 0 2 7 0 2 5
34 Swedish turnips 0 2 11 0 2 9 0 2 8 0 2 7 0 2 5 0 2 3
35 Yellow turnips (0 2 6) 0 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 0
36 White turnips 0 2 7 0 2 5 0 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 2 0 2 0

The factory-made cheese of Canada, the United States and Australasia, which is so largely imported into the United Kingdom, is all of the Cheddar type. The factory system has made no headway in the original home of the Cheddar cheese in the west of England. The system was thus described in the Journal of the British Dairy Farmers’ Association in 1889 by Mr R. J. Drummond:—

The factory-produced cheese from Canada, the United States, and Australasia, which is mostly imported into the United Kingdom, is all of the Cheddar variety. The factory approach hasn’t made any progress in the original region of Cheddar cheese in the west of England. This system was described in the Journal of the British Dairy Farmers’ Association in 1889 by Mr. R. J. Drummond:—

“In the year 1885 I was engaged as cheese instructor by the Ayrshire Dairy Association, to teach the Canadian system of Cheddar cheese-making. I commenced operations under many difficulties, being a total stranger to both the people and the country, and with this, the quantities of milk were very much less than I had been in the habit of handling. Instead of having the milk from 500 to 1000 cows, we had to operate with the milk from 25 to not over 60 cows.

“In 1885, I was hired as a cheese instructor by the Ayrshire Dairy Association to teach the Canadian method of Cheddar cheese-making. I started my work facing many challenges, being completely unfamiliar with both the people and the country, and the amount of milk we had to work with was significantly less than what I was used to. Instead of handling milk from 500 to 1000 cows, we had to manage with milk from just 25 to no more than 60 cows.”

“The system of cheese-making commonly practised in the county of Ayr at that time was what is commonly known as the Joseph Harding or English Cheddar system, which differs from the Canadian system in many details, and in one particular is essentially different, namely, the manner in which the necessary acidity in the milk is produced. In the old method a certain quantity of sour whey was added to the milk each day before adding the rennet, and I have no doubt in my own mind that this whey was often added when the milk was already acid enough, and the consequence was a spoiled cheese.

“The cheese-making process commonly used in Ayr during that time was known as the Joseph Harding or English Cheddar system. This method differs from the Canadian system in many ways, and in one key aspect, it is fundamentally different: how acidity is created in the milk. In the traditional approach, a certain amount of sour whey was added to the milk daily before rennet was introduced, and I’m convinced that this whey was often added when the milk was already sufficiently acidic, resulting in spoiled cheese.”

“Another objection to this system of adding sour whey was, should the stuff be out of condition one day, the same trouble was inoculated with the milk from day to day, and the result was sure to be great unevenness in the quality of the cheese. The utensils commonly in use were very different to anything I had ever seen before; instead of the oblong cheese vat with double casings, as is used by the best makers at the present time, a tub, sometimes of tin and sometimes of wood, from 4 to 7 ft. in diameter by about 30 in. deep, was universally in use. Instead of being able to heat the milk with warm water or steam, as is commonly done now, a large can of a capacity of from 20 to 30 gallons was filled with cold milk and placed in a common hot-water boiler, and heated sufficiently to bring the whole body of the milk in the tub to the desired temperature for adding the rennet. I found that many mistakes were made in the quantity of rennet used, as scarcely any two makers used the same quantity to a given quantity of milk. Instead of having a graduated measure for measuring the rennet, a common tea-cup was used for this purpose, and I have found in some dairies as low as 3 oz. of rennet was used to 100 gallons of milk, where in others as high as 6½ oz. was used to the same quantity. This of itself would cause a difference in the quality of the cheese.

“Another concern with this system of adding sour whey was that if it went bad one day, the same problem would carry over to the milk every day, leading to significant inconsistency in the cheese quality. The equipment commonly used was very different from anything I had ever seen before; instead of the rectangular cheese vat with double walls, as is used by the best makers today, a tub, sometimes made of tin and sometimes of wood, measuring 4 to 7 feet in diameter and about 30 inches deep, was universally used. Instead of heating the milk with warm water or steam like is typically done now, a large can with a capacity of 20 to 30 gallons was filled with cold milk and placed in a standard hot-water boiler, then heated enough to bring the entire amount of milk in the tub to the desired temperature for adding the rennet. I noticed that many errors were made in the amount of rennet used, as hardly any two makers used the same amount for a given quantity of milk. Instead of having a graduated measure for the rennet, a regular tea cup was used for this purpose, and I found in some dairies as little as 3 oz. of rennet was used for 100 gallons of milk, while in others, it was as much as 6½ oz. for the same amount. This alone would create a difference in the cheese quality."

“Coagulation and breaking completed, the second heating was effected by dipping the whey from the curd into the can already 747 mentioned, and heated to a temperature of 140° F., and returned to the curd, and thus the process was carried on till the desired temperature was reached. This mode of heating I considered very laborious and at the same time very unsatisfactory, as it is impossible to distribute the heat as evenly through the curd in this way as by heating either with hot water or steam. The other general features of the method do not differ from our own very materially, with the exception that in the old method the curd was allowed to mature in the bottom of the tub, where at the same stage we remove the curd from the vat to what we call a curd-cooler, made with a sparred bottom, so as to allow the whey to separate from the curd during the maturing or ripening process. In regard to the quality of cheese on the one method compared with the other, I think that there was some cheese just as fine made in the old way as anything we can possibly make in the new, with one exception, and that is, that the cheese made according to the old method will not toast—instead of the casein melting down with the butter-fat, the two become separated, which is very much objected to by the consumer—and, with this, want of uniformity through the whole dairy. This is a very short and imperfect description of how the cheese was made at the time I came into Ayrshire; and I will now give a short description of the system that has been taught by myself for the past four years, and has been the means of bringing this county so prominently to the front as one of the best cheese-making counties in Britain.

After coagulation and breaking were finished, the second heating was done by dipping the whey from the curd into the previously mentioned container, heated to 140°F, then returned to the curd. This process continued until the desired temperature was achieved. I found this heating method very labor-intensive and quite unsatisfactory because it's impossible to distribute the heat evenly throughout the curd this way, unlike when using hot water or steam. The other main aspects of the method aren’t significantly different from our own, except that in the old method, the curd was allowed to mature at the bottom of the tub, while we remove the curd from the vat to what we call a curd-cooler, which has a sparred bottom to allow the whey to separate during the maturing or ripening process. Regarding the quality of cheese from the two methods, I believe some cheese made the old way is just as good as anything we can produce today, with one exception: cheese made using the old method doesn’t toast—rather than the casein melting together with the butterfat, the two separate, which consumers really dislike—and this also causes a lack of uniformity across the entire dairy. This is a brief and imperfect description of how cheese was made when I started in Ayrshire; now I’ll provide a short outline of the system I’ve been teaching for the past four years, which has helped put this county on the map as one of the top cheese-making regions in Britain.

“Our duty in this system of cheese-making begins the night before, in having the milk properly set and cooled according to the temperature of the atmosphere, so as to arrive at a given heat the next morning. Our object in this is to secure, at the time we wish to begin work in the morning, that degree of acidity or ripeness essential to the success of the whole operation. We cannot give any definite guide to makers how, or in what quantities, to set their milk, as the whole thing depends on the good judgment of the operator. If he finds that his milk works best at a temperature of 68° F. in the morning, his study the night before should tend toward such a result, and he will soon learn by experience how best to manage the milk in his own individual dairy. I have found in some dairies that the milk worked quite fast enough at a temperature of 64° in the morning, where in others the milk set in the same way would be very much out of condition by being too sweet, causing hours of delay before matured enough to add the rennet. Great care should be taken at this point, making sure that the milk is properly matured before the rennet is added, as impatience at this stage often causes hours of delay in the making of a cheese. I advise taking about six hours from the time the rennet is added till the curd is ready for salting, which means a six-hours’ process; if much longer than this, I have found by experience that it is impossible to obtain the best results. The cream should always be removed from the night’s milk in the morning and heated to a temperature of about 84° before returning it to the vat. To do this properly and with safety, the cream should be heated by adding about two-thirds of warm milk as it comes from the cow to one-third of cream, and passed through the ordinary milk-strainers. If colouring matter is used, it should be added fifteen to twenty minutes before the rennet, so as to become thoroughly mingled with the milk before coagulation takes place.

“Our job in this cheese-making process starts the night before by ensuring the milk is properly set and cooled according to the outside temperature, so it reaches a specific warmth by the next morning. The goal is to achieve the right level of acidity or ripeness at the time we want to start working in the morning, which is essential for the success of the entire process. We can't provide a definite guideline for how or in what quantities to set the milk, as it all depends on the operator's judgment. If he finds that his milk works best at a temperature of 68° F. in the morning, then his preparation the night before should focus on achieving that result, and he'll learn from experience how to best handle the milk in his specific dairy. I’ve noticed in some dairies that the milk works just fine at 64° in the morning, while in others, milk set the same way becomes too sweet and is out of condition, causing hours of delay before it matures enough to add the rennet. Great care must be taken at this stage to ensure the milk is properly matured before adding the rennet, as rushing this step often leads to delays in cheese-making. I recommend taking about six hours from the time the rennet is added until the curd is ready for salting, which makes for a six-hour process; if it takes much longer, I’ve learned from experience that it’s impossible to achieve the best results. The cream should always be removed from the night’s milk in the morning and heated to about 84° before being returned to the vat. To do this properly and safely, the cream should be heated by mixing two-thirds of warm milk, straight from the cow, with one-third of cream, and passed through standard milk strainers. If coloring is used, it should be added 15 to 20 minutes before the rennet to ensure it’s well mixed with the milk before coagulation occurs.”

“We use from 4 to 4½ oz. of Hansen’s rennet extract to each 100 gallons of milk, at a temperature of 86° in spring and 84° in summer, or sufficient to coagulate milk firm enough to cut in about forty minutes when in a proper condition. In cutting, great care should be taken not to bruise the curd. I cut lengthwise, then across with perpendicular knife, then with horizontal knife the same way of the perpendicular, leaving the curd in small cubes about the size of ordinary peas. Stirring with the hands should begin immediately after cutting, and continue for ten to fifteen minutes prior to the application of heat. At this stage we use a rake instead of the hands for stirring the curd during the heating process, which lasts about one hour from the time of beginning until the desired temperature of 100° or 102° is reached. After heating, the curd should be stirred another twenty minutes, so as to become properly firm before allowing it to settle. We like the curd to lie in the whey fully one hour after allowing it to settle before it is ready for drawing the whey, which is regulated altogether by the condition of the milk at the time the rennet is added. At the first indication of acid, the whey should be removed as quickly as possible. I think at this point lies the greatest secret of cheese-making—to know when to draw the whey.

“We use 4 to 4½ oz. of Hansen’s rennet extract for every 100 gallons of milk, at a temperature of 86° in spring and 84° in summer, or just enough to coagulate the milk firmly enough to cut in about forty minutes when it's in the right condition. When cutting, be careful not to bruise the curd. I cut lengthwise, then across with a vertical knife, then with a horizontal knife the same way as the vertical, leaving the curd in small cubes about the size of regular peas. Stirring with my hands should start immediately after cutting and continue for ten to fifteen minutes before applying heat. At this point, we use a rake instead of our hands to stir the curd during the heating process, which lasts about one hour from the start until we reach the desired temperature of 100° or 102°. After heating, the curd should be stirred for another twenty minutes to firm up properly before allowing it to settle. We let the curd sit in the whey for a full hour after it settles before it's ready to drain the whey, which is entirely dependent on the condition of the milk when the rennet is added. At the first sign of acidity, the whey should be removed as quickly as possible. I believe the biggest secret of cheese-making lies in knowing when to drain the whey.”

“I depend entirely on the hot-iron test at this stage, as I consider it the most accurate and reliable guide known to determine when the proper acidity has been developed. To apply this test, take a piece of steel bar about 18 in. long by 1 in. wide and ¼ in. thick, and heat to a black heat; if the iron is too hot, it will burn the curd; if too cold, it will not stick; consequently it is a very simple matter to determine the proper heat. Take a small quantity of the curd from the vat and compress it tightly in the hand, so as to expel all the whey; press the curd against the iron, and when acid enough it will draw fine silky threads ¼ in. long. At this stage the curd should be removed to the curd-cooler as quickly as possible, and stirred till dry enough to allow it to mat, which generally takes from five to eight minutes. The curd is now allowed to stand in one end of the cooler for thirty minutes, when it is cut into pieces from 6 to 8 in. square and turned, and so on every half-hour until it is fit for milling. After removing the whey, a new acid makes its appearance in the body of the curd, which seems to depend for its development upon the action of the air, and the presence of which experience has shown to be an essential element in the making of a cheese. This acid should be allowed to develop properly before the addition of salt. To determine when the curd is ready for salting, the hot-iron test is again resorted to; and when the curd will draw fine silky threads 1½ in. long, and at the same time have a soft velvety feel when pressed in the hand, the butter-fat will not separate with the whey from the curd. I generally advise using 1 ℔ of salt to 50 ℔ of curd, more or less, according to the condition of the curd. After salting, we let the curd lie fifteen minutes, so as to allow the salt to be thoroughly dissolved before pressing.

“I rely completely on the hot-iron test at this stage, as I believe it’s the most accurate and dependable method to determine when the right acidity has developed. To use this test, take a piece of steel bar about 18 inches long, 1 inch wide, and ¼ inch thick, and heat it to a black heat; if the iron is too hot, it will burn the curd; if it’s too cold, it won’t stick; so it’s quite easy to figure out the right temperature. Take a small amount of the curd from the vat and squeeze it tightly in your hand to get rid of all the whey; press the curd against the iron, and when it’s acidic enough, it will pull fine silky threads that are ¼ inch long. At this point, the curd should be moved to the curd-cooler as quickly as possible and stirred until it’s dry enough to clump together, which usually takes about five to eight minutes. The curd is then allowed to sit in one end of the cooler for thirty minutes, after which it’s cut into pieces that are 6 to 8 inches square and turned, repeating this every half hour until it’s ready for milling. After the whey is removed, a new acid appears in the body of the curd, which seems to develop thanks to the air, and experience has shown that this is a crucial element in cheese making. This acid should have enough time to develop before adding salt. To know when the curd is ready for salting, we use the hot-iron test again; when the curd pulls fine silky threads that are 1½ inches long, and also feels soft and velvety when pressed in your hand, the butter-fat won’t separate from the whey. I typically suggest using 1 pound of salt for every 50 pounds of curd, give or take, depending on the curd’s condition. After salting, we let the curd rest for fifteen minutes to ensure the salt dissolves completely before pressing.”

“In the pressing, care should be taken not to press the curd too severely at first, as you are apt to lose some of the butter-fat, and with this I do not think that the whey will come away so freely by heavy pressing at first. We advise three days’ pressing before cheese is taken to the curing-room. All cheese should have a bath in water at a temperature of 120° next morning after being made, so as to form a good skin to prevent cracking or chipping. The temperature of the curing-room should be kept as near 60° as possible at all seasons of the year, and I think it a good plan to ventilate while heating.”

“In the pressing process, be careful not to press the curd too hard at first, as you might lose some of the butterfat, and I don’t think the whey will separate easily with heavy pressing initially. We recommend pressing for three days before transferring the cheese to the curing room. The following morning after making the cheese, it should be soaked in water at a temperature of 120° to create a good skin that prevents cracking or chipping. The curing room temperature should be maintained as close to 60° as possible throughout the year, and I believe it’s a good idea to ventilate while heating.”

With regard to the hot-iron test for acidity, Mr F. J. Lloyd, in describing his investigations on behalf of the Bath and West of England Society, states that cheese-makers have long known that in both the manufacture and the ripening of cheese the acidity produced—known to the chemist as “lactic acid”—materially influences the results obtained, and that amongst other drawbacks to the test referred to is the uncertainty of the temperature of the iron itself. He gives an account,8 however, of a chemical method involving the use of a standard solution of an alkali (soda), and of a substance termed an “indicator” (phenolphthalein), which changes colour according to whether a solution is acid or alkaline. The apparatus used with these reagents is called the acidimeter. The two stages in the manufacture of a Cheddar cheese most difficult to determine empirically are—(1) when to stop stirring and to draw the whey, and (2) when to grind the curd. The introduction of the acidimeter has done away with these difficulties; and though the use of this apparatus is not actually a condition essential to the manufacture of a good cheese, it is to many makers a necessity and to all an advantage. By its use the cheese-maker can determine the acidity of the whey, and so decide when to draw the latter off, and will thus secure not only the proper development of acidity in the subsequent changes of cheese-making, but also materially diminish the time which the cheese takes to make. Furthermore, it has been proved that the acidity of the whey which drains from the curd when in the cooler is a sufficiently accurate guide to the condition of the curd before grinding; and by securing uniformity in this acidity the maker will also ensure uniformity in the quality and ripening properties of the cheese. Speaking generally, the acidity of the liquid from the press should never fall below 0.80% nor rise above 1.20%, and, the nearer it can be kept to 1.00% the better. Simultaneously, of course, strict attention must be paid to temperature, time and every other factor which can be accurately determined. Analyses of large numbers of Cheddar cheeses manufactured in every month of the cheese-making season show the average composition of ripe specimens to be—water, 35.58%; fat, 31.33; casein, 29.12; mineral matter or ash, 3.97. It has been maintained that in the ripening of Cheddar cheese fat is formed out of the curd, but a comparison of analyses of ripe cheeses with analyses of the curd from which the cheeses were made affords no evidence that this is the case.

Regarding the hot-iron test for acidity, Mr. F. J. Lloyd, in sharing his research for the Bath and West of England Society, says that cheese-makers have known for a long time that the acidity produced—known to chemists as “lactic acid”—significantly affects the outcomes in both cheese-making and ripening. He points out some drawbacks to the test, notably the uncertainty of the iron's temperature. However, he describes a chemical method that uses a standard solution of an alkali (soda) and a substance called an “indicator” (phenolphthalein), which changes color depending on whether a solution is acidic or alkaline. The equipment used with these reagents is called the acidimeter. The two hardest stages in making Cheddar cheese to determine empirically are: (1) when to stop stirring and draw off the whey, and (2) when to grind the curd. The introduction of the acidimeter has eliminated these challenges; while using this equipment isn’t essential for making good cheese, many producers find it necessary, and all can benefit from it. With it, the cheese-maker can measure the acidity of the whey to decide when to drain it, thus ensuring not only the proper development of acidity during subsequent cheese-making steps but also significantly reducing the time required to make the cheese. Additionally, it has been proven that the acidity of the whey that drains from the curd while it cools is a reliable indicator of the curd's condition before grinding; maintaining uniformity in this acidity will also ensure consistent quality and ripening properties in the cheese. Generally, the acidity of the liquid from the press should never drop below 0.80% or rise above 1.20%, with 1.00% being the ideal target. At the same time, it’s crucial to pay close attention to temperature, timing, and all other factors that can be accurately measured. Analyses of a large number of Cheddar cheeses made each month during the cheese-making season reveal that the average composition of ripe specimens is—water, 35.58%; fat, 31.33%; casein, 29.12%; mineral matter or ash, 3.97%. It has been argued that fat is produced from the curd during the ripening of Cheddar cheese, but comparing analyses of ripe cheeses with those of the curd used to make them shows no evidence to support this claim.

The quantity of milk required to make 1 ℔ of Cheddar cheese may be learnt from Table X., which shows the results obtained at the cheese school of the Bath and West of England Society in the two seasons of 1899 and 1900. The cheese was sold at an average age of ten to twelve weeks. In 1899 a total of 21,220 gallons of milk yielded 20,537 ℔ of saleable cheese, and in 1900, 31,808 gallons yielded 29,631 ℔. In the two years together 53,028 gallons yielded 50,168 ℔, which is equivalent to 1.05 gallon of milk to 1 ℔ of cheese. For practical purposes it may 748 be taken that one gallon, or slightly over 10 ℔ of milk, yields 1 ℔ of pressed cheese. The prices obtained are added as a matter of interest.

The amount of milk needed to make 1 pound of Cheddar cheese can be found in Table X, which presents the results from the cheese school of the Bath and West of England Society during the 1899 and 1900 seasons. The cheese was typically sold at an average age of ten to twelve weeks. In 1899, 21,220 gallons of milk produced 20,537 pounds of saleable cheese, and in 1900, 31,808 gallons produced 29,631 pounds. Over the two years combined, 53,028 gallons resulted in 50,168 pounds, which equals 1.05 gallons of milk for 1 pound of cheese. For practical purposes, it can be assumed that one gallon, or slightly more than 10 pounds of milk, yields 1 pound of pressed cheese. The prices achieved are included for reference.

Cheshire cheese is largely made in the county from which it takes its name, and in adjoining districts. It is extensively consumed in Manchester and Liverpool, and other parts of the densely populated county of Lancaster.

Cheshire cheese is mainly produced in the county it's named after and in nearby areas. It's widely consumed in Manchester and Liverpool, along with other parts of the heavily populated county of Lancaster.

Table X.Quantities of Milk employed and of Cheese produced in the Manufacture of Cheddar Cheese.

Table X.Amounts of Milk used and Cheese made in the Production of Cheddar Cheese.

When Made. Milk. Green
Cheese.
Saleable
Cheese.
Shrinkage. Price.
  galls.   per cwt.
April 1899 3077 3100 2924 6 per cent. 60s.
May 4462 4502 4257 6½ ℔ per cwt. 63s.
June 4316 4434 4141 7 ℔ 6 oz. per cwt. 70s.
July 3699 3785 3545 7 ℔ 2 oz. per cwt. 74s.
August 2495 2539 2353 8 ℔ 3 oz. per cwt. 74s.
Sept. and Oct. 3171 3583 3317 8 ℔ 5 oz. per cwt. 74s.
April 1900 3651 3505 3292 6 per cent. 63s.
May 6027 6048 5577 7¾ per cent. 64s.
June 5960 5889 5466 7¼ per cent. 68s.
July and Aug. 7227 7177 6630 7½ per cent. 66s.
Sept. and Oct. 8943 9635 8666 10 per cent. 66s.

The following is a description of the making of Cheshire cheese:—

The following is a description of how Cheshire cheese is made:—

The evening’s milk is set apart until the following morning, when the cream is skimmed off. The latter is poured into a pan which has been heated by being placed in the boiling water of a boiler. The new milk obtained early in the morning is poured into the vessel containing the previous evening’s milk with the warmed cream, and the temperature of the mixture is brought to about 75° F. Into the vessel is introduced a piece of rennet, which has been kept in warm water since the preceding evening, and in which a little Spanish annatto (¼ oz. is enough for a cheese of 60 ℔) is dissolved. (Marigolds, boiled in milk, are occasionally used for colouring cheese, to which they likewise impart a pleasant flavour. In winter, carrots scraped and boiled in milk, and afterwards strained, will produce a richer colour; but they should be used with moderation, on account of their taste.) The whole is now stirred together, and covered up warm for about an hour, or until it becomes curdled; it is then turned over with a bowl and broken very small. After standing a little time, the whey is drawn from it, and as soon as the curd becomes somewhat more solid it is cut into slices and turned over repeatedly, the better to press out the whey.

The evening's milk is set aside until the next morning, when the cream is skimmed off. The cream is poured into a pan that's been heated in boiling water. The fresh milk collected in the morning is mixed with the previous evening's milk and warmed cream, and the temperature is raised to about 75°F. A piece of rennet, kept in warm water since the night before, is added to the mixture along with a bit of Spanish annatto (¼ oz. is sufficient for a 60 lb. cheese). (Occasionally, marigolds boiled in milk are used to color cheese and add a nice flavor. In winter, scraped carrots boiled in milk and then strained can enrich the color, but they should be used sparingly due to their taste.) Everything is stirred together and kept warm for about an hour, or until it curdles; then it is turned out with a bowl and broken into very small pieces. After resting a bit, the whey is drained, and as soon as the curd firms up more, it is sliced and repeatedly turned to better press out the whey.

The curd is then removed from the tub, broken by hand or cut by a curd-breaker into small pieces, and put into a cheese vat, where it is strongly pressed both by hand and with weights, in order to extract the remaining whey. After this it is transferred to another vat, or into the same if it has in the meantime been well scalded, where a similar process of breaking and expressing is repeated, until all the whey is forced from it. The cheese is now turned into a third vat, previously warmed, with a cloth beneath it, and a thin loop of binder put round the upper edge of the cheese and within the sides of the vat, the cheese itself being previously enclosed in a clean cloth, and its edges placed within the vat, before transfer to the cheese-oven. These various processes occupy about six hours, and eight more are requisite for pressing the cheese, under a weight of 14 or 15 cwt. The cheese during that time should be twice turned in the vat. Holes are bored in the vat which contains the cheese, and also in the cover of it, to facilitate the extraction of every drop of whey. The pressure being continued, the cheese is at length taken from the vat as a firm and solid mass.

The curd is then taken out of the tub, broken by hand or cut into small pieces with a curd-breaker, and placed in a cheese vat, where it's pressed strongly by hand and with weights to remove the remaining whey. After this, it's moved to another vat, or back to the same one if it has been properly heated, and the process of breaking and pressing is repeated until all the whey is extracted. The cheese is then transferred to a warmed third vat, with a cloth underneath, and a thin loop of binder is placed around the upper edge of the cheese and inside the vat's sides, with the cheese itself wrapped in a clean cloth, its edges positioned inside the vat before moving to the cheese-oven. All these steps take about six hours, followed by an additional eight hours for pressing the cheese under a weight of 14 or 15 cwt. During this time, the cheese needs to be turned twice in the vat. Holes are drilled in the vat and its lid to help drain every drop of whey. With the pressure maintained, the cheese is finally removed from the vat as a firm and solid mass.

On the following morning and evening it must be again turned and pressed; and also on the third day, about the middle of which it should be removed to the salting-chamber, where the outside is well rubbed with salt, and a cloth binder passed round it which is not turned over the upper surface. The cheese is then placed in brine extending half-way up in a salting-tub, and the upper surface is thickly covered with salt. Here it remains for nearly a week, being turned twice in the day. It is then left to dry for two or three days, during which period it is turned once—being well salted at each turning—and cleaned every day. When taken from the brine it is put on the salting benches, with a wooden girth round it of nearly the thickness of the cheese, where it stands a few days, during which time it is again salted and turned every day. It is next washed and dried; and after remaining on the drying benches about seven days, it is once more washed in warm water with a brush, and wiped dry. In a couple of hours after this it is rubbed all over with sweet whey butter, which operation is afterwards frequently repeated; and, lastly, it is deposited in the cheese- or store-room—which should be moderately warm and sheltered from the access of air, lest the cheese should crack—and turned every day, until it has become sufficiently hard and firm. These cheeses require to be kept a considerable time.

The next morning and evening, it needs to be turned and pressed again; and on the third day, about halfway through, it should be moved to the salting chamber, where the outside is well rubbed with salt, and a cloth binder is wrapped around it without covering the top. The cheese is then placed in brine that comes halfway up in a salting tub, and the top is heavily covered with salt. It stays there for nearly a week, being turned twice a day. After that, it is left to dry for two or three days, during which it is turned once—being well salted at each turn—and cleaned every day. When taken out of the brine, it goes on the salting benches, with a wooden band around it that's about the thickness of the cheese, where it sits for a few days and is salted and turned every day. Next, it gets washed and dried; after staying on the drying benches for about seven days, it gets washed again in warm water with a brush and wiped dry. Within a couple of hours, it's rubbed all over with sweet whey butter, a process that's repeated often. Finally, it's placed in the cheese or store room—which should be moderately warm and protected from drafts, to prevent the cheese from cracking—and turned every day until it becomes hard and firm enough. These cheeses need to be stored for a considerable time.

As a matter of fact, there are three different modes of cheese-making followed in Cheshire, known as the early ripening, the medium ripening and the late ripening processes. There is also a method which produces a cheese that is permeated with “green mould” when ripe, called “Stilton Cheshire”; this, however, is confined to limited districts in the county. The early ripening method is generally followed in the spring of the year, until the middle or end of April; the medium process, from that time till late autumn, or until early in June, when the late ripening process is adopted and followed until the end of September, changing again to the medium process as the season advances. The late ripening process is not found to be suitable for spring or late autumn make. There is a decided difference between these several methods of making. In the early ripening system a larger quantity of rennet is used, more acidity is developed, and less pressure employed than in the other processes. In the medium ripening process a moderate amount of acidity is developed, to cause the natural drainage of the whey from the curd when under press. In the late ripening system, on the other hand, the development of acidity is prevented as far as possible, and the whey is got out of the curd by breaking down finer, using more heat, and skewering when under press. In the Stilton Cheshire process a larger quantity of rennet is used, and less pressure is employed, than in the medium or late ripening systems.

Actually, there are three different cheese-making methods used in Cheshire, known as the early ripening, the medium ripening, and the late ripening processes. There’s also a method that makes cheese that has “green mould” when it’s ripe, called “Stilton Cheshire”; however, this is limited to certain areas in the county. The early ripening method is generally used in the spring, until mid or late April; the medium process runs from that time until late autumn, or until early June, when the late ripening process takes over and continues until the end of September, switching back to the medium process as the season progresses. The late ripening process isn’t suitable for spring or late autumn production. There’s a clear difference between these methods. In the early ripening system, a larger amount of rennet is used, more acidity is developed, and less pressure is applied than in the other processes. In the medium ripening process, a moderate level of acidity develops to help drain the whey from the curd while it’s being pressed. In the late ripening system, however, the development of acidity is minimized, and whey is removed from the curd by breaking it down more finely, using more heat, and skewering while it’s under pressure. In the Stilton Cheshire process, more rennet is used, and less pressure is applied than in the medium or late ripening systems.

It is hardly possible to enunciate any general rules for the making of Stilton cheese, which differs from Cheddar and Cheshire in that it is not subjected to pressure. Mr J. Marshall Dugdale, in 1899, made a visit of inspection to the chief Leicestershire dairies where this cheese is produced, but in his report9 he stated that every Stilton cheese-maker worked on his own lines, and that at no two dairies did he find the details all carried out in the same manner. There is a fair degree of uniformity up to the point when the curd is ladled into the straining-cloths, but at this stage, and in the treatment of the curd before salting, diversity sets in, several different methods being in successful use. Most of the cheese is made from two curds, the highly acid curd from the morning’s milk being mixed with the comparatively sweet curd from the evening’s milk. Opinion varies widely as to the degree of tightening of the straining-cloths. No test for acidity appears to be used, the amount of acidity being judged by the taste, feel and smell of the curd. When the desired degree of acidity has developed, the curd is broken by hand to pieces the size of small walnuts, and salt is added at the rate of about 1 oz. to 4 ℔ of dry curd, or 1 oz. to 3½ ℔ of wet curd, care being taken not to get the curd pasty. If a maker has learnt how to rennet the milk properly, and how to secure the right amount of acidity at the time of hooping—that is, when the broken and salted curd is put into the wooden hoops which give the cheese its shape—he has acquired probably two of the most important details necessary to success. It was formerly the custom to add cream to the milk used for making Stilton cheese, but the more general practice now is to employ new milk alone, which yields a product apparently as excellent and mellow as that from enriched milk.

It's almost impossible to lay down any general rules for making Stilton cheese, which is different from Cheddar and Cheshire because it isn't pressed. In 1899, Mr. J. Marshall Dugdale inspected the main dairies in Leicestershire where this cheese is produced, but in his report9, he noted that each Stilton cheese-maker had their own methods, and no two dairies applied the same techniques. There's a fair amount of consistency up to the point when the curd is ladled into straining cloths, but at this stage, and in how the curd is treated before salting, there's a lot of variation, with multiple successful methods in use. Most cheese is made from two curds: the highly acidic curd from the morning milk mixed with the relatively sweet curd from the evening milk. Opinions vary greatly regarding how tightly to tighten the straining cloths. No acidity tests seem to be performed; the acidity is gauged by the taste, texture, and smell of the curd. Once the desired acidity is reached, the curd is broken into pieces the size of small walnuts, and salt is added at about 1 ounce to 4 pounds of dry curd, or 1 ounce to 3½ pounds of wet curd, ensuring that the curd doesn’t become pasty. If a maker has figured out how to properly rennet the milk and achieve the right acidity when hooping—the process of putting the broken and salted curd into wooden hoops that shape the cheese—they have likely mastered two of the most crucial aspects of making Stilton. It used to be common to add cream to the milk for Stilton cheese, but nowadays, the more common practice is to use just fresh milk, which produces a product that seems just as excellent and mellow as that made with enriched milk.

As a cheese matures or becomes fit for consumption, not only is there produced the characteristic flavour peculiar to the type of cheese concerned, but with all varieties, independently of the quality of flavours developed, a profound physical transformation of the casein occurs. In the course of this change the firm elastic curd “breaks down”—that is, becomes plastic, whilst chemically the insoluble casein is converted into various soluble decomposition products. These ripening phenomena—the production of flavour and the breaking down of the casein (that is, the formation of proper texture)—used to be regarded as different phases of the same process. As subsequently shown, however, these changes are not necessarily so closely correlated. The theories formerly advanced as explanatory of the ripening changes in cheese were suggestive rather than based upon experimental data, and it is only since 1896 that careful scientific studies of the problem have been made. Of the two existing theories, the one, which is essentially European, ascribes the ripening changes wholly to the action of living organisms—the bacteria present in the cheese. The other, which had its origin 749 in the United States, asserts that there are digestive enzymes—that is, unorganized or soluble ferments—inherent in the milk itself that render the casein soluble. The supporters of the bacterial theory are ranged in two classes. The one, led by Duclaux, regards the breaking down of the casein as due to the action of liquefying bacteria (Tyrothrix forms). On the other hand, von Freudenreich has ascribed these changes to the lactic-acid type of bacteria, which develop so luxuriantly in hard cheese like Cheddar.

As cheese ages or becomes ready to eat, it not only develops the unique flavor associated with that particular type of cheese but also undergoes a significant physical transformation of the casein, regardless of the flavors produced. During this process, the firm, elastic curd "breaks down"—meaning it becomes more pliable—while the insoluble casein chemically converts into various soluble decomposition products. These aging phenomena—the development of flavor and the breaking down of the casein (which leads to the proper texture)—were once thought to be different phases of the same process. However, it has since been demonstrated that these changes aren't necessarily so closely linked. The earlier theories explaining the ripening changes in cheese were more suggestive than based on experimental evidence, and only since 1896 have there been thorough scientific studies on the issue. Of the two existing theories, one, primarily European, attributes the ripening changes entirely to the action of living organisms—the bacteria found in the cheese. The other theory, originating in the United States, claims that there are digestive enzymes—unorganized or soluble ferments—present in the milk itself that make the casein soluble. Supporters of the bacterial theory can be divided into two groups. One group, led by Duclaux, believes that the breakdown of casein is caused by liquefying bacteria (Tyrothrix forms). In contrast, von Freudenreich attributes these changes to the lactic-acid type of bacteria, which thrive in hard cheeses like Cheddar.

With regard to the American theory, and in view of the important practical results obtained by Babcock and Russell at the Wisconsin experiment station, the following account10 of their work is of interest, especially as the subject is of high practical importance. In 1897 they announced the discovery of an inherent enzyme in milk, which they named galactase, and which has the power of digesting the casein of milk, and producing chemical decomposition products similar to those that normally occur in ripened cheese. The theory has been advanced by them that this enzyme is an important factor in the ripening changes; and as in their experiments bacterial action was excluded by the use of anaesthetic agents, they conclude that, so far as the breaking down of the casein is concerned, bacteria are not essential to this process. In formulating a theory of cheese-ripening, they have further pointed out the necessity of considering the action of rennet extract as a factor concerned in the curing changes. They have shown that the addition of increased quantities of rennet extract materially hastens the rate of ripening, and that this is due to the pepsin which is present in all commercial rennet extracts. They find it easily possible to differentiate between the proteolytic action—that is, the decomposing of proteids—of pepsin and galactase, in that the first-named enzyme is incapable of producing decomposition products lower than the peptones precipitated by tannin. They have shown that the increased solubility—the ripening changes—of the casein in cheese made with rennet is attributable solely to the products peculiar to peptic digestion. The addition of rennet extract or pepsin to fresh milk does not produce this change, unless the acidity of the milk is allowed to develop to a point which experience has shown to be the best adapted to the making of Cheddar cheese. The rationale of the empirical process of ripening the milk before the addition of the rennet is thus explained. In studying the properties of galactase it was further found that this enzyme, as well as those present in rennet extract, is operative at very low temperatures, even below freezing-point. When cheese made in the normal manner was kept at temperatures ranging from 25° to 45° F. for periods averaging from eight to eighteen months, it was found that the texture of the product simulated that of a perfectly ripened cheese, but that such cheese developed a very mild flavour in comparison with the normally-cured product. Subsequent storage at somewhat higher temperatures gives to such cheese a flavour the intensity of which is determined by the duration of storage. This indicates that the breaking down of the casein and the production of the flavour peculiar to cheese are in a way independent of each other, and may be independently controlled—a point of great economic importance in commercial practice. Although it is generally believed that cheese ripened at low temperatures is apt to develop a more or less bitter flavour, the flavours in the cases described were found to be practically perfect. Under these conditions of curing, bacterial activity is inoperative, and these experiments are held to furnish an independent proof of the enzyme theory.

Regarding the American theory, and considering the significant practical results obtained by Babcock and Russell at the Wisconsin experiment station, the following account10 of their work is noteworthy, especially since the topic is of great practical importance. In 1897, they announced the discovery of an enzyme inherent in milk, which they named galactase. This enzyme can digest the casein in milk and produce chemical byproducts similar to those found in ripened cheese. They proposed that this enzyme plays an essential role in the ripening process; since they excluded bacterial activity in their experiments using anesthetic agents, they concluded that bacteria are not necessary for breaking down the casein. While formulating a theory of cheese ripening, they also highlighted the importance of considering rennet extract as a key factor in the curing process. They demonstrated that increasing amounts of rennet extract significantly speed up the ripening rate, which is attributed to the pepsin found in all commercial rennet extracts. They found it easy to distinguish between the proteolytic actions—meaning the breakdown of proteins—of pepsin and galactase, noting that the former cannot produce byproducts lower than the peptones that are precipitated by tannin. They showed that the increased solubility and ripening changes of the casein in cheese made with rennet are solely due to the products specific to peptic digestion. The addition of rennet extract or pepsin to fresh milk does not cause this change unless the milk acidity is allowed to develop to a point that experience has shown to be optimal for making Cheddar cheese. The rationale of the empirical process of ripening the milk before adding rennet is thus clarified. In their study of galactase, it was also found that this enzyme, along with those present in rennet extract, works at very low temperatures, even below freezing. When cheese made in the usual way was stored at temperatures from 25° to 45° F. for periods averaging from eight to eighteen months, the product's texture resembled that of perfectly ripened cheese, but its flavor was quite mild compared to normally cured cheese. Further storage at slightly higher temperatures gave the cheese a flavor whose intensity depended on the length of storage. This suggests that the breakdown of casein and the development of the flavor typical of cheese are somewhat independent and can be controlled separately—a point of considerable economic significance in commercial practices. Although it is commonly thought that cheese aged at low temperatures tends to develop a somewhat bitter flavor, the flavors in these cases were found to be nearly perfect. Under these curing conditions, bacterial activity is inactive, and these experiments provide independent evidence for the enzyme theory.

Not only are these investigations of interest from the scientific standpoint, as throwing light on the obscure processes of cheese-curing, but from a practical point of view they open up a new field for commercial exploitation. The inability to control the temperature in the ordinary factory curing-room results in serious losses, on account of the poor and uneven quality of the product, and the consumption of cheese has been greatly lessened thereby. These conditions may all be avoided by this low-temperature curing process, and it is not improbable that the cheese industry may undergo important changes in methods of treatment. With the introduction of cold-storage curing, and the necessity of constructing centralized plant for this purpose, the cheese industry may perhaps come to be differentiated into the manufacture of the product in factories of relatively cheap construction, and the curing or ripening of the cheese in central curing stations. In this way not only would the losses which occur under present practices be obviated, but the improvement in the quality of the cured product would be more than sufficient to cover the cost of cold-storage curing.

These investigations are not only scientifically interesting as they shed light on the unclear processes of cheese-curing, but they also create new opportunities for commercial use. The inability to control the temperature in a typical factory curing room leads to significant losses due to the poor and inconsistent quality of the cheese, which has decreased its consumption. These issues can be avoided with this low-temperature curing method, and it’s likely that the cheese industry will see important changes in treatment methods. With the introduction of cold-storage curing and the need to set up centralized facilities for this purpose, the cheese industry might evolve into two separate processes: manufacturing the product in relatively inexpensive factories and curing or aging the cheese in central curing stations. This approach wouldn’t just prevent the losses seen with current methods, but the improvements in the quality of the aged product would more than offset the costs of cold-storage curing.

The characteristics of typical specimens of the different kinds of English cheese may be briefly described. Cheddar cheese possesses the aroma and flavour of a nut—the so-called “nutty” flavour. It should melt in the mouth, and taste neither sweet nor acid. It is of flaky texture, neither hard nor crumbly, and is firm to the touch. It is early-ripening and, if not too much acid is developed in the making, long-keeping. Before all others it is a cosmopolitan cheese. Some cheeses are “plain,” that is, they possess the natural paleness of the curd, but many are coloured with annatto—a practice that might be dispensed with. The average weight of a Cheddar cheese is about 70 ℔. Stilton cheese is popularly but erroneously supposed to be commonly made from morning’s whole milk with evening’s cream added, and to be a “double-cream” cheese. The texture is waxy, and a blue-green mould permeates the mass if well ripened; the flavour is suggestive of decay. The average weight of a Stilton is 15 ℔. Cheshire cheese has a fairly firm and uniform texture, neither flaky on the one hand nor waxy on the other; is of somewhat sharp and piquant flavour when fully ripe; and is often—at eighteen months old, when a well-made Cheshire cheese is at its best—permeated with a blue-green mould, which, as in the case of Stilton cheese, contributes a characteristic flavour which is much appreciated. Cheshire cheese is, like Cheddar, sometimes highly-coloured, but the practice is quite unnecessary; the weight is about 55 ℔. Gloucester cheese has a firm, somewhat soapy, texture and sweet flavour. Double Gloucester differs from single Gloucester only in size, the former usually weighing 26 to 30 ℔, and the latter 13 to 15 ℔. Leicester cheese is somewhat loose in texture, and mellow and moist when nicely ripened. Its flavour is “clean,” sweet and mild, and its aroma pleasant. To those who prefer a mild flavour in cheese, a perfect Leicester is perhaps the most attractive of all the so-called “hard” cheese; the average weight of such a cheese is about 35 ℔. Derby cheese in its best forms is much like Leicester, being “clean” in flavour and mellow. It is sometimes rather flaky in texture, and is slow-ripening and long-keeping if made on the old lines; the average weight is 25 ℔. Lancashire cheese, when well made and ripe, is loose in texture and is mellow; it has a piquant flavour. As a rule it ripens early and does not keep long. Dorset cheese—sometimes called “blue vinny” (or veiny)—is of firm texture, blue-moulded, and rather sharp-flavoured when fully ripe; it has local popularity and the best makes are rather like Stilton. Wensleydale cheese, a local product in North Yorkshire, is of fairly firm texture and mild flavour, and may almost be spread with a knife when ripe; the finest makes are equal to the best Stilton. Cotherstone cheese, also a Yorkshire product, is very much like Stilton and commonly preferable to it. The blue-green mould develops, and the cheese is fairly mellow and moist, whereas many Stiltons are hard and dry. Wiltshire cheese, in the form of “Wilts truckles,” may be described as small Cheddars, the weight being usually about 16 ℔. Caerphilly cheese is a thin, flat product, having the appearance of an undersized single Gloucester and weighing about 8 ℔; it has no very marked characteristics, but enters largely into local consumption amongst the mining population of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire. Soft cheese of various kinds is made in many localities, beyond which its reputation scarcely extends. One of the oldest and best, somewhat resembling Camembert when well ripened, is the little “Slipcote,” made on a small scale in the county of Rutland; it is a soft, mellow, moist cheese, its coat slipping off readily when the cheese is at its best for eating—hence the name. Cream cheese is likewise made in many districts, but nowhere to a great extent. A 750 good cream cheese is fairly firm but mellow, with a slightly acid yet very attractive flavour. It is the simplest of all cheese to make—cream poured into a perforated box lined with loose muslin practically makes itself into cheese in a few days’ time, and is usually ripe in a week.

The characteristics of typical examples of the different types of English cheese can be briefly described. Cheddar cheese has the aroma and flavor of a nut—the so-called “nutty” flavor. It should melt in your mouth and taste neither sweet nor sour. It has a flaky texture, isn't hard or crumbly, and feels firm to the touch. It ripens early and, if not too much acid is developed during production, it can be stored for a long time. Above all, it is a cosmopolitan cheese. Some cheeses are “plain,” meaning they have the natural pale color of the curd, but many are colored with annatto—a practice that could be skipped. The average weight of a Cheddar cheese is about 70 lbs. Stilton cheese is often mistakenly thought to be made from morning's whole milk with evening's cream added, and to be a “double-cream” cheese. Its texture is waxy, and a blue-green mold can fill it if it's well ripened; the flavor suggests decay. The average weight of a Stilton is 15 lbs. Cheshire cheese has a fairly firm and uniform texture, neither flaky nor waxy; it has a somewhat sharp and tangy flavor when fully ripe; and it's often—at eighteen months old, when a well-made Cheshire cheese is at its best—filled with a blue-green mold, which, like Stilton cheese, adds a characteristic flavor that is much appreciated. Cheshire cheese is, like Cheddar, sometimes heavily colored, but this practice is quite unnecessary; the weight is about 55 lbs. Gloucester cheese has a firm, somewhat soapy texture and sweet flavor. Double Gloucester differs from Single Gloucester only in size, the former usually weighing 26 to 30 lbs, and the latter 13 to 15 lbs. Leicester cheese has a somewhat loose texture and is mellow and moist when well ripened. Its flavor is “clean,” sweet, and mild, and its aroma is pleasant. For those who prefer a mild flavor in cheese, a perfect Leicester is perhaps the most appealing of all the so-called “hard” cheeses; the average weight is about 35 lbs. Derby cheese in its best forms is very similar to Leicester, being “clean” in flavor and mellow. It can sometimes be somewhat flaky in texture and is slow to ripen and long-lasting if made traditionally; the average weight is 25 lbs. Lancashire cheese, when well made and ripe, is loose in texture and mellow; it has a tangy flavor. Generally, it ripens quickly and does not keep long. Dorset cheese—sometimes called “blue vinny” (or veiny)—has a firm texture, is blue-molded, and has a rather sharp flavor when fully ripe; it is locally popular, and the best examples are quite like Stilton. Wensleydale cheese, a local favorite in North Yorkshire, has a fairly firm texture and mild flavor, and can almost be spread with a knife when ripe; the finest examples match the best Stilton. Cotherstone cheese, also from Yorkshire, is very similar to Stilton and commonly preferred over it. The blue-green mold develops, and the cheese is quite mellow and moist, while many Stiltons are hard and dry. Wiltshire cheese, in the form of “Wilts truckles,” can be described as small Cheddars, typically weighing around 16 lbs. Caerphilly cheese is a thin, flat product, resembling a smaller single Gloucester and weighing about 8 lbs; it lacks very distinctive characteristics but is widely consumed by the mining communities of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire. Various types of soft cheese are made in many areas, but their reputation hardly extends beyond those localities. One of the oldest and best, somewhat similar to Camembert when fully ripened, is the small “Slipcote,” produced on a small scale in Rutland; it is a soft, mellow, moist cheese, with its rind easily slipping off when it’s at its best for eating—hence the name. Cream cheese is also made in many regions, but not extensively. A 750 good cream cheese is relatively firm but mellow, with a slightly tangy yet very appealing flavor. It is the simplest cheese to make—cream poured into a perforated box lined with loose muslin practically turns itself into cheese in a few days and is usually ready in a week.

In France the pressed varieties of cheese with hard rinds include Gruyère, Cantal, Roquefort and Port Salut. The first-named, a pale-yellow cheese full of holes of varying size, is made in Switzerland and in the Jura Mountains district in the east of France; whilst Cantal cheese, which is of lower quality, is a product of the midland districts and is made barrel-shape. Roquefort cheese is made from the milk of ewes, which are kept chiefly as dairy animals in the department of Aveyron, and the cheese is cured in the natural mountain caves at the village of Roquefort. It is a small, rather soft, white cheese, abundantly veined with a greenish-blue mould and weighs between 4 and 5 ℔. The Port Salut is quite a modern cheese, which originated in the abbey of that name in Mayenne; it is a thin, flat cheese of characteristic, and not unattractive odour and flavour. The best known of the soft unpressed cheeses are Brie, Camembert and Coulommiers, whilst Pont l’Evêque, Livarot and other varieties are also made. After being shaped in moulds of various forms, these cheeses are laid on straw mats to cure, and when fit to eat they possess about the same consistency as butter. The Neufchâtel, Gervais and Bondon cheeses are soft varieties intended to be eaten quite fresh, like cream cheese.

In France, the pressed cheeses with hard rinds include Gruyère, Cantal, Roquefort, and Port Salut. Gruyère, a pale-yellow cheese with holes of different sizes, is made in Switzerland and the Jura Mountains region in eastern France. Cantal cheese, which is of lower quality, comes from the central regions and is shaped like a barrel. Roquefort cheese is made from the milk of ewes, primarily kept as dairy animals in the Aveyron department, and it's aged in natural mountain caves in the village of Roquefort. This cheese is small, relatively soft, white, and has abundant greenish-blue veins, weighing between 4 and 5 pounds. Port Salut is a relatively modern cheese that originated in the abbey of the same name in Mayenne; it's a thin, flat cheese with a distinctive, and quite appealing, smell and taste. The best-known soft, unpressed cheeses include Brie, Camembert, and Coulommiers, along with other varieties like Pont l’Evêque and Livarot. After being shaped in various molds, these cheeses are placed on straw mats to cure, and when they're ready to eat, they have a consistency similar to butter. Neufchâtel, Gervais, and Bondon are soft cheeses meant to be consumed fresh, much like cream cheese.

Of the varieties of cheese made in Switzerland, the best known is the Emmenthaler, which is about the size of a cart-wheel, and has a weight varying from 150 to 300 ℔. It is full of small holes of almost uniform size and very regularly distributed. In colour and flavour it is the same as Gruyère. The Edam and Gouda are the common cheeses of Holland. The Edam is spherical in shape, weighs from 3 to 4 ℔, and is usually dyed crimson on the outside. The Gouda is a flat cheese with convex edges and is of any weight up to 20 ℔. Of the two, the Edam has the finer flavour. Limburger is the leading German cheese, whilst other varieties are the Backstein and Munster; all are strong-smelling. Parmesan cheese is an Italian product, round and flat, about 5 in. thick, weighing from 60 to 80 ℔ and possessed of fine flavour. Gorgonzola cheese, so called from the Italian town of that name near Milan, is made in the Cheddar shape and weighs from 20 to 40 ℔. When ripe it is permeated by a blue mould, and resembles in flavour, appearance and consistency a rich old Stilton.

Of the types of cheese made in Switzerland, the most famous is Emmenthaler, which is about the size of a cartwheel and weighs between 150 and 300 lbs. It’s filled with small holes that are almost uniform in size and evenly distributed. In terms of color and flavor, it’s similar to Gruyère. Edam and Gouda are the common cheeses from Holland. Edam is spherical, weighs between 3 and 4 lbs, and is usually dyed red on the outside. Gouda is a flat cheese with rounded edges and can weigh up to 20 lbs. Of the two, Edam has the better flavor. Limburger is the most popular cheese in Germany, while other types include Backstein and Munster; all of them have a strong smell. Parmesan cheese is an Italian product, round and flat, about 5 inches thick, weighing between 60 and 80 lbs and having a fine flavor. Gorgonzola cheese, named after the Italian town near Milan, is made in the shape of Cheddar and weighs between 20 and 40 lbs. When it’s ripe, it’s filled with blue mold and has a flavor, appearance, and texture similar to rich old Stilton.

For descriptions of all the named varieties of cheese, see Bulletin 105 of the Bureau of Animal Industry (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington), issued 27th of June 1908, compiled by C. F. Doane and H. W. Lawson.

For descriptions of all the named types of cheese, check out Bulletin 105 of the Bureau of Animal Industry (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington), released on June 27, 1908, compiled by C. F. Doane and H. W. Lawson.

Butter and Butter-Making

Butter and Making Butter

As with cheese, so with butter, large quantities of the latter have been inferior not because the cream was poor in quality, but because the wrong kinds of bacteria had taken possession of the atmosphere in hundreds of dairies. The greatest if not the latest novelty in dairying in the last decade of the 19th century was the isolation of lactic acid bacilli, their cultivation in a suitable medium, and their employment in cream preparatory to churning. Used thus in butter-making, an excellent product results, provided cleanliness be scrupulously maintained. The culture repeats itself in the buttermilk, which in turn may be used again with marked success. Much fine butter, indeed, was made long before the bearing of bacteriological science upon the practice of dairying was recognized—made by using acid buttermilk from a previous churning.

Just like with cheese, large amounts of butter have often been of low quality not because the cream was bad, but because the wrong types of bacteria had taken over the atmosphere in many dairies. The biggest, if not the newest, innovation in dairying during the last decade of the 19th century was isolating lactic acid bacteria, growing them in a suitable medium, and using them in cream before churning. When used this way in butter-making, the result is an excellent product, as long as cleanliness is strictly maintained. The culture repeats itself in the buttermilk, which can then be reused with great success. In fact, some excellent butter was produced long before the relevance of bacteriological science to dairy practices was recognized—made by using acidic buttermilk from a previous batch.

In Denmark, which is, for its size, the greatest butter-producing country in the world, most of the butter is made with the aid of “starters,” or artificial cultures which are employed in ripening the cream. Though the butter made by such cultures shows little if any superiority over a good sample made from cream ripened in the ordinary way—that is, by keeping the cream at a fairly high temperature until it is ready for churning, when it must be cooled—it is claimed that the use of these cultures enables the butter-makers of Denmark to secure a much greater uniformity in the quality of their produce than would be possible if they depended upon the ripening of the cream through the influence of bacteria taken up in the usual way from the air.

In Denmark, which is the largest butter-producing country in the world relative to its size, most butter is made using "starters" or artificial cultures to ripen the cream. Although butter made with these cultures shows little to no advantage over good butter made from cream ripened in the traditional way—by keeping the cream at a relatively high temperature until it's ready for churning, and then cooling it—it's said that using these cultures allows Danish butter-makers to achieve much greater consistency in the quality of their product than if they relied on the natural bacteria from the air for cream ripening.

Butter-making is an altogether simpler process than cheese-making, but success demands strict attention to sound principles, the observance of thorough cleanliness in every stage of the work, and the intelligent use of the thermometer. The following rules for butter-making, issued by the Royal Agricultural Society sufficiently indicate the nature of the operation:—

Butter-making is a much simpler process than cheese-making, but success requires careful attention to good practices, maintaining cleanliness at every stage of the work, and smart use of a thermometer. The following butter-making guidelines, provided by the Royal Agricultural Society, clearly outline the process:—

Prepare churn, butter-worker, wooden-hands and sieve as follows:—(1) Rinse with cold water. (2) Scald with boiling water. (3) Rub thoroughly with salt. (4) Rinse with cold water.

Prepare the churn, butter worker, wooden hands, and sieve like this: (1) Rinse with cold water. (2) Scald with boiling water. (3) Rub thoroughly with salt. (4) Rinse with cold water.

Always use a correct thermometer.

Always use an accurate thermometer.

The cream, when in the churn, to be at a temperature of 56° to 58° F. in summer and 60° to 62° F. in winter. The churn should never be more than half full. Churn at number of revolutions suggested by maker of churn. If none are given, churn at 40 to 45 revolutions per minute. Always churn slowly at first.

The cream should be at a temperature of 56° to 58° F in the summer and 60° to 62° F in the winter while in the churn. The churn should never be more than half full. Churn at the number of revolutions suggested by the churn's manufacturer. If no suggestions are provided, churn at 40 to 45 revolutions per minute. Always start churning slowly.

Ventilate the churn freely and frequently during churning, until no air rushes out when the vent is opened.

Ventilate the churn openly and often while churning, until no air escapes when the vent is opened.

Stop churning immediately the butter comes. This can be ascertained by the sound; if in doubt, look.

Stop churning as soon as the butter forms. You can tell by the sound; if you're unsure, check.

The butter should now be like grains of mustard seed. Pour in a small quantity of cold water (1 pint of water to 2 quarts of cream) to harden the grains, and give a few more turns to the churn gently.

The butter should now have the texture of mustard seeds. Add a small amount of cold water (1 pint of water for every 2 quarts of cream) to firm up the grains, and give the churn a few more gentle turns.

Draw off the buttermilk, giving plenty of time for draining. Use a straining-cloth placed over the hair-sieve, so as to prevent any loss, and wash the butter in the churn with plenty of cold water: then draw off the water, and repeat the process until the water comes off quite clear.

Draw off the buttermilk, allowing enough time for it to drain. Use a straining cloth over the sieve to avoid any losses, and rinse the butter in the churn with plenty of cold water. Then, remove the water and repeat the process until the water runs clear.

To brine butter, make a strong brine, 2 to 3 ℔ of salt to 1 gallon of water. Place straining-cloth over mouth of churn, pour in brine, put lid on churn, turn sharply half a dozen times, and leave for 10 to 15 minutes. Then lift the butter out of the churn into sieve, turn butter out on worker, leave it a few minutes to drain, and work gently till all superfluous moisture is pressed out.

To brine butter, create a strong brine with 2 to 3 pounds of salt for every gallon of water. Place a straining cloth over the opening of the churn, pour in the brine, cover the churn, turn it sharply about six times, and let it sit for 10 to 15 minutes. After that, lift the butter out of the churn into a sieve, turn the butter out onto a working surface, let it drain for a few minutes, and gently press it until all excess moisture is removed.

To drysalt butter, place butter on worker, let it drain 10 to 15 minutes, then work gently till all the butter comes together. Place it on the scales and weigh; then weigh salt, for slight salting, ¼ oz.; medium, ½ oz.; heavy salting, ¾ oz. to the ℔ of butter. Roll butter out on worker and carefully sprinkle salt over the surface, a little at a time; roll up and repeat till all the salt is used.

To dry salt butter, place butter on a clean surface, let it drain for 10 to 15 minutes, then gently work it together until it forms a single mass. Place it on a scale and weigh it; then weigh in out salt—¼ oz. for light salting, ½ oz. for medium salting, and ¾ oz. for heavy salting per pound of butter. Roll the butter out on the surface and gradually sprinkle the salt over the top, a little at a time; roll it up and repeat until all the salt is used.

Never touch the butter with your hands.

Don't touch the butter with your hands.

Well-made butter is firm and not greasy. It possesses a characteristic texture or “grain,” in virtue of which it cuts clean with a knife and breaks with a granular fracture, like that of cast-iron. Theoretically, butter should consist of little else than fat, but in practice this degree of perfection is never attained. Usually the fat ranges from 83 to 88%, whilst water is present to the extent of from 10 to 15%.11 There will also be from 0.2 to 0.8% of milk-sugar, and from 0.5 to 0.8% of casein. It is the casein which is the objectionable ingredient, and the presence of which is usually the cause of rancidity. In badly-washed or badly-worked butter, from which the buttermilk has not been properly removed, the proportion of casein or curd left in the product may be considerable, and such butter has only inferior keeping qualities. At the same time, the mistake may be made of overworking or of overwashing the butter, thereby depriving it of the delicacy of flavour which is one of its chief attractions as an article of consumption if eaten fresh. The object of washing with brine is that the small quantity of salt thus introduced shall act as a preservative and develop the flavour. Streaky butter may be due either to curd left in by imperfect washing, or to an uneven distribution of the salt.

Well-made butter is firm and not greasy. It has a distinct texture or “grain,” which allows it to cut cleanly with a knife and break apart with a granular fracture, similar to cast iron. In theory, butter should consist mainly of fat, but in reality, this level of perfection is never reached. Typically, the fat content ranges from 83 to 88%, while water makes up about 10 to 15%. 11 There will also be between 0.2 and 0.8% of milk sugar and from 0.5 to 0.8% of casein. Casein is the undesirable ingredient, and its presence is often the cause of rancidity. In poorly washed or poorly processed butter, where the buttermilk hasn’t been completely removed, the amount of casein or curd left in the product can be significant, leading to butter that has poor shelf life. At the same time, it’s possible to overwork or overwash the butter, which can strip away the delicate flavor that makes it appealing when eaten fresh. The purpose of washing with brine is to add a small amount of salt, which acts as a preservative and enhances the flavor. Striated butter may be caused either by curd left in due to inadequate washing or by an uneven distribution of salt.

Equipment of the Dairy

Dairy Equipment

Fig. 1.—Milking-Pail. Fig. 2.—Milk Sieve.
Fig. 3.—Rectangular Cheese-Vat.
Fig. 4.—Cheese-Tub.
Fig. 5.—Curd-Knives.

The improved form of milking-pail shown in fig. 1 has rests or brackets, which the milker when seated on his stool places on his knees; he thus bears the weight on his thighs, and is entirely relieved of the strain involved in gripping the can between the knees. The milk sieve or strainer (fig. 2) is used to remove cow-hairs and any other mechanical impurity that may have fallen into the milk. A double straining surface is provided, the second being of very fine gauze placed vertically, so that the pressure of the milk does not force the dirt through; the strainer is easily washed. The cheese tub or vat receives 751 the milk for cheese-making. The rectangular form shown in fig. 3 is a Cheshire cheese-vat, for steam. The inner vat is of tinned steel, and the outer is of iron and is fitted with pipes for steam supply. Round cheese-tubs (fig. 4) are made of strong sheets of steel, double tinned to render them lasting. They are fitted with a strong bottom hoop and bands round the sides, and can be double-jacketed for steam-heating if required. Curd-knives (fig. 5) are used for cutting the coagulated mass into cubes in order to liberate the whey. They are made of fine steel, with sharp edges; there are also wire curd-breakers. The object of the curd-mill (fig. 6) is to grind consolidated curd into small pieces, preparatory to salting and vatting; two spiked rollers work up to spiked breasts. Hoops, into which the curd is placed in order to acquire the shape of the cheese, are of wood or steel, the former being made of well-seasoned oak with iron bands (fig. 7), the latter of tinned steel. The cheese is more easily removed from the steel hoops and they are readily cleaned. The cheese-press (fig. 8) is used only for hard or “pressed” cheese, such as Cheddar. The arrangement is such that the pressure is continuous; in the case of soft cheese the curd is merely placed in moulds (figs. 9 and 10) of the required shape, and then taken cut to ripen, no pressure being applied. The cheese-room is fitted with easily-turned shelves, on which newly-made “pressed” cheeses are laid to ripen.

The upgraded milking pail shown in fig. 1 features rests or brackets that the milker can place on their knees while sitting on a stool; this way, the weight rests on their thighs, eliminating the strain of gripping the can between their knees. The milk sieve or strainer (fig. 2) is designed to filter out cow hairs and any other impurities that might have contaminated the milk. It has a double straining surface, with the second layer made of very fine gauze placed vertically to prevent dirt from passing through under the pressure of the milk; the strainer is easy to clean. The cheese tub or vat holds the milk for cheese-making. The rectangular design shown in fig. 3 is a Cheshire cheese vat for steam. The inner vat is made of tinned steel, while the outer one is iron and is equipped with steam supply pipes. Round cheese tubs (fig. 4) are constructed from strong sheets of steel, double tinned for durability. They have a sturdy bottom hoop and side bands and can be fitted with a double jacket for steam heating if needed. Curd knives (fig. 5) are used to cut the coagulated mass into cubes to release the whey. They are made of fine steel with sharp edges, and wire curd-breakers are also available. The curd mill (fig. 6) is designed to grind solidified curd into small pieces before salting and vatting; it uses two spiked rollers that work against spiked breasts. Hoops that the curd is placed into for shaping the cheese can be made of wood or steel; the wooden ones are crafted from well-seasoned oak with iron bands (fig. 7), while the steel ones are made of tinned steel. The cheese is more easily removed from the steel hoops, and they are simple to clean. The cheese press (fig. 8) is used only for hard or “pressed” cheeses like Cheddar. It is designed for continuous pressure; for soft cheese, the curd is simply placed in molds (figs. 9 and 10) of the desired shape and then taken out to ripen without any pressure applied. The cheese room is equipped with easily adjustable shelves where newly made “pressed” cheeses are laid out to ripen.

Fig. 6.—Curd-Mill. Fig. 7.—Hoop for Flat Cheese.
Fig. 8.—Cheese-Press.
Fig. 9.—Cheese-Mould (Gervais).
Fig. 10.—Cheese-Mould
(Pont l’Évêque).
Fig. 11.—Milk-Pan.
Fig. 12.—Skimmer.

In the butter dairy, when the centrifugal separator is not used, milk is “set” for cream-raising in the milk-pan (fig. 11), a shallow vessel of white porcelain, tinned steel or enamelled iron. The skimming-dish or skimmer (fig 12), made of tin, is for collecting the cream from the surface of the milk, whence it is transferred to the cream-crock (fig. 13), in which vessel the cream remains from one to three days, till it is required for churning. Many different kinds of churns are in use, and vary much in size, shape and fittings; the one illustrated in fig. 14 is a very good type of diaphragm churn. The butter-scoop (fig. 15) is of wood and is sometimes perforated; it is used for taking the butter out of the churn. The butter-worker (fig. 16) is employed for consolidating newly-churned butter, pressing out superfluous water and mixing in salt. More extended use, however, is now being made of the “Délaiteuse” butter dryer, a centrifugal machine that rapidly extracts the moisture from the butter, and renders the 752 butter-worker unnecessary, whilst the butter produced has a better grain. Scotch hands (fig. 17), made of boxwood, are used for the lifting, moulding and pressing of butter.

In the butter dairy, when the centrifugal separator isn't used, milk is set aside in the milk pan (fig. 11), which is a shallow container made of white porcelain, tinned steel, or enamelled iron to allow cream to rise. The skimming dish or skimmer (fig. 12), made of tin, is used to collect the cream from the top of the milk, which is then transferred to a cream crock (fig. 13). The cream stays in this container for one to three days until it's needed for churning. There are many different kinds of churns that vary widely in size, shape, and fittings; the one shown in fig. 14 is a great example of a diaphragm churn. The butter scoop (fig. 15) is made of wood and is sometimes perforated; it’s used to take the butter out of the churn. The butter worker (fig. 16) is used to consolidate freshly churned butter, pressing out excess water and mixing in salt. However, the "Délaiteuse" butter dryer is gaining wider use; it’s a centrifugal machine that quickly removes moisture from the butter and makes the butter worker unnecessary, resulting in butter with a better texture. Scotch hands (fig. 17), made of boxwood, are used for lifting, molding, and pressing butter.

Fig. 13.—Cream-Crock.
Fig. 14.—Churn.
Fig. 15.—Butter-Scoop.

In the centrifugal cream-separator the new milk is allowed to flow into a bowl, which is caused to rotate on its own axis several thousand times per minute. The heavier portion which makes up the watery part of the milk flies to the outer circumference of the bowl, whilst the lighter particles of butter-fat are forced to travel in an inner zone. By a simple mechanical arrangement the separated milk is forced out at one tube and the cream at another, and they are collected in distinct vessels. Separators are made of all sizes, from small machines dealing with 10 or 20 up to 100 gallons an hour, and worked by hand (fig. 18), to large machines separating 150 to 440 gallons an hour, and worked by horse, steam or other power (fig. 19). Separation is found to be most effective at temperatures ranging in different machines from 80° to 98° F., though as high a temperature as 150° is sometimes employed. The most efficient separators remove nearly the whole of the butter-fat, the quantity of fat left in the separated milk falling in some cases to as low as 0.1. When cream is raised by the deep-setting method, from 0.2 to 0.4% of fat is left in the skim-milk; by the shallow-setting method from 0.3 to 0.5% of the fat is left behind. As a rule, therefore, “separated” milk is much poorer in fat than ordinary “skim” milk left by the cream-raising method in deep or shallow vessels.

In the centrifugal cream separator, fresh milk is poured into a bowl that spins on its axis several thousand times per minute. The heavier, watery part of the milk moves to the outer edge of the bowl, while the lighter butterfat particles are pushed toward the inner area. With a simple mechanical setup, the skimmed milk is expelled from one tube and the cream from another, collecting them in separate containers. Separators come in various sizes, from small machines that handle 10 to 20 gallons an hour and are operated by hand (fig. 18), to large machines that separate 150 to 440 gallons an hour, powered by horses, steam, or other energy sources (fig. 19). The separation process is most effective at temperatures typically ranging from 80° to 98° F, although it can go as high as 150°. The most efficient separators can remove almost all of the butterfat, leaving as little as 0.1% fat in the separated milk. When cream is produced using the deep-setting method, 0.2% to 0.4% of fat remains in the skim milk; with the shallow-setting method, 0.3% to 0.5% of the fat is left behind. Generally, “separated” milk contains significantly less fat than regular “skim” milk produced by the cream-raising method in either deep or shallow containers.

The first continuous working separator was the invention of Dr de Laval. The more recent invention by Baron von Bechtolsheim of what are known as the Alfa discs, which are placed along the centre of the bowl of the separator, has much increased the separating capacity of the machines without adding to the power required. This has been of great assistance to dairy farmers by lessening the cost of the manufacture of butter, and thus enabling a large additional number of factories to be established in different parts of the world, particularly in Ireland, where these disc machines are very extensively used.

The first continuous working separator was invented by Dr. de Laval. A more recent innovation by Baron von Bechtolsheim is the Alfa discs, which are positioned in the center of the separator's bowl. This has significantly improved the machines' separating capacity without increasing the power needed. This advancement has greatly helped dairy farmers by reducing the cost of butter production, allowing many more factories to open in various parts of the world, especially in Ireland, where these disc machines are widely used.

Fig. 16.—Butter-Worker.
Fig. 17.—Scotch Hands. Fig. 18.—Hand-Separator.

The pasteurizer—so named after the French chemist Pasteur—affords a means whereby at the outset the milk is maintained at a temperature of 170° to 180° F. for a period of eight or ten minutes. The object of this is to destroy the tubercle bacillus, if it should happen to exist in the milk, whilst incidentally the bacilli associated with several other diseases communicable through the medium of milk would also be killed if they were present. Discordant results have been recorded by experimenters who have attempted to kill tubercle bacilli in milk by heating the latter in open vessels, thereby permitting the formation of a scum or “scalded layer” capable of protecting the tubercle bacilli, and enabling them to resist a higher temperature than otherwise would be fatal to them. At a temperature not much above 150° F. milk begins to acquire the cooked flavour which is objectionable to many palates, whilst its “body” is so modified as to lessen its suitability for creaming purposes. Three factors really enter into effective pasteurization of milk, namely (1) the temperature to which the milk is raised, (2) the length of time it is kept at that temperature, (3) the maintenance of a condition of mechanical agitation to prevent the formation of “scalded layer.” Within limits, what a higher temperature will accomplish if maintained for a very short time may be effected by a lower temperature continued over a longer period. The investigation of the problem forms the subject of a paper12 in the 17th Annual Report of the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, 1900. The following are the results of the experiments:—

The pasteurizer—named after the French chemist Pasteur—provides a way for milk to be kept at a temperature of 170° to 180° F for eight to ten minutes. The goal is to kill the tubercle bacillus, if it’s present in the milk, while also eliminating bacilli linked to several other milk-borne diseases. Researchers have reported mixed results when trying to kill tubercle bacilli in milk by heating it in open containers, which can create a scum or “scalded layer” that protects the bacilli and allows them to survive higher temperatures that would normally be deadly. At temperatures slightly above 150° F, milk starts to develop a cooked flavor that many people find off-putting, and its texture changes, making it less suitable for creaming. Three key factors influence effective pasteurization of milk: (1) the temperature to which the milk is heated, (2) the duration it remains at that temperature, and (3) the maintenance of mechanical agitation to avoid the formation of a “scalded layer.” Within certain limits, the effects of a higher temperature maintained for a very short period can be achieved by a lower temperature sustained over a longer time. The investigation of this issue is discussed in a paper12 in the 17th Annual Report of the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, 1900. The following are the results of the experiments:—

1. An exposure of tuberculous milk in a tightly closed commercial pasteurizer for a period of ten minutes destroyed in every case the tubercle bacillus, as determined by the inoculation of such heated milk into susceptible animals like guinea-pigs.

1. Exposing tuberculous milk in a tightly closed commercial pasteurizer for ten minutes completely eliminated the tubercle bacillus, as confirmed by inoculating such heated milk into susceptible animals like guinea pigs.

753

753

2. Where milk is exposed under conditions that would enable a pellicle or membrane to form on the surface, the tubercle organism is able to resist the action of heat at 140° F. (60° C.) for considerably longer periods of time.

2. When milk is exposed to conditions that allow a film or membrane to develop on the surface, the tubercle bacteria can withstand heat at 140° F. (60° C.) for much longer periods.

Fig. 19.—Power Separator.

3. Efficient pasteurization can be more readily accomplished in a closed receptacle such as is most frequently used in the commercial treatment of milk, than where the milk is heated in open bottles or open vats.

3. Efficient pasteurization is easier to achieve in a closed container, like the ones commonly used in the commercial treatment of milk, than when the milk is heated in open bottles or open vats.

Fig. 20.—Refrigerator and Can.

4. It is recommended, in order thoroughly to pasteurize milk so as to destroy any tubercle bacilli which it may contain, without in any way injuring its creaming properties or consistency, to heat the same in closed pasteurizers for a period of not less than twenty minutes at 140° F.

4. It is recommended that, to completely pasteurize milk and eliminate any tubercle bacilli it might have, without harming its creaminess or consistency, you should heat it in closed pasteurizers for at least twenty minutes at 140° F.

Under these conditions one may be certain that disease bacteria such as the tubercle bacillus will be destroyed without the milk or cream being injured in any way. For over a year this new standard has been in constant use in the Wisconsin University Creamery, and the results, from a purely practical point of view, reported a year earlier by Farrington and Russell,13 have been abundantly confirmed.

Under these conditions, it's clear that disease-causing bacteria, like the tubercle bacillus, will be eliminated without harming the milk or cream. For more than a year, this new standard has been consistently used at the University of Wisconsin Creamery, and the results, from a practical standpoint, reported a year earlier by Farrington and Russell,13 have been thoroughly validated.

Fig. 21.—Cyclindrical Cooler or Refrigerator.
Fig. 22.—Butyrometer.

Dairy engineers have solved the problem as to how large bodies of milk may be pasteurized, the difficulty of raising many hundreds or thousands of gallons of milk up to the required temperature, and maintaining it at that heat for a period of twenty minutes, having been successfully dealt with. The plant usually employed provides for the thorough filtration of the milk as it comes in from the farms, its rapid heating in a closed receiver and under mechanical agitation up to the desired temperature, its maintenance thereat for the requisite time, and finally its sudden reduction to the temperature of cold water through the agency of a refrigerator, to be next noticed.

Dairy engineers have figured out how to pasteurize large amounts of milk. They’ve successfully tackled the challenge of heating hundreds or thousands of gallons of milk to the necessary temperature and keeping it at that level for twenty minutes. The typical setup used ensures that the milk is thoroughly filtered as it arrives from the farms, rapidly heated in a closed container with mechanical stirring to reach the desired temperature, held there for the required time, and then quickly cooled down to the temperature of cold water using a refrigerator, which will be discussed next.

Refrigerators are used for reducing the temperature of milk to that of cold water, whereby its keeping properties are enhanced. The milk flows down the outside of the metal refrigerator (fig. 20), which is corrugated in order to provide a larger cooling surface, whilst cold water circulates through the interior of the refrigerator. The conical vessel into which the milk is represented as flowing from the refrigerator in fig. 20 is absurdly called a “milk-churn,” whereas milk-can is a much more appropriate name. For very large quantities of milk, such as flow from a pasteurizing plant, cylindrical refrigerators (fig. 21), made of tinned copper, are available; the cold water circulates inside, and the milk, flowing down the outside in a very thin sheet, is rapidly cooled from a temperature of 140° F. or higher to 1° above the temperature of the water.

Refrigerators are used to lower the temperature of milk to that of cold water, which improves its preservation. The milk flows down the outside of the metal refrigerator (fig. 20), which has a corrugated design to create a larger cooling surface, while cold water circulates inside the refrigerator. The conical vessel shown in fig. 20, into which the milk is depicted as flowing from the refrigerator, is oddly referred to as a “milk-churn,” while “milk-can” is a much more fitting name. For very large amounts of milk, such as those that come from a pasteurizing plant, cylindrical refrigerators (fig. 21) made of tinned copper are available; cold water circulates inside, and the milk, flowing down the outside in a very thin layer, is quickly cooled from a temperature of 140° F. or higher to just 1° above the temperature of the water.

The fat test for milk was originally devised by Dr S. M. Babcock, of the Wisconsin, U.S.A., experiment station. It combines the principle of centrifugal force with simple chemical action. Besides the machine itself and its graduated glass vessels, the only requirements are sulphuric acid of standard strength and warm water. The machines—often termed butyrometers—are commonly made to hold from two up to two dozen testers. After the tubes or testers have been charged, they are put in the apparatus, which is rapidly rotated as shown (fig. 22); in a few minutes the test is complete, and with properly graduated vessels the percentage of fat can be read off at a glance. The butyrometer is extremely useful, alike for measuring periodically the fat-producing capacity of individual cows in a herd, for rapidly ascertaining the percentage of fat in milk delivered to factories and paying for such milk on the basis of quality, and for determining the richness in fat of milk supplied for the urban milk trade. Any intelligent person can soon learn to 754 work the apparatus, but its efficiency is of course dependent upon the accuracy of the measuring vessels. To ensure this the board of agriculture have made arrangements with the National Physical Laboratory, Old Deer Park, Richmond, Surrey, to verify at a small fee the pipettes, measuring-glasses, and test-bottles used in connexion with the centrifugal butyrometer, which in recent years has been improved by Dr N. Gerber of Zürich.

The fat test for milk was originally developed by Dr. S. M. Babcock from the Wisconsin experiment station in the U.S.A. It uses centrifugal force along with basic chemical reactions. Besides the machine and its graduated glass containers, you'll just need standard-strength sulfuric acid and warm water. The machines, often called butyrometers, usually accommodate between two and twenty-four testers. Once the tubes or testers are prepared, they’re placed in the apparatus, which spins rapidly as shown (fig. 22); within a few minutes, the test is finished, and with properly graduated vessels, the fat percentage can be read easily. The butyrometer is incredibly helpful for regularly measuring the fat-producing capacity of individual cows in a herd, quickly determining the fat percentage in milk sent to factories and paying for that milk based on quality, and assessing the fat content in milk supplied for the urban market. Anyone with basic intelligence can quickly learn to operate the device, but its effectiveness relies on the accuracy of the measuring vessels. To ensure this, the board of agriculture has partnered with the National Physical Laboratory at Old Deer Park, Richmond, Surrey, to verify, for a small fee, the pipettes, measuring glasses, and test bottles used with the centrifugal butyrometer, which has been enhanced in recent years by Dr. N. Gerber from Zürich.

Dairy Factories

Dairy Plants

In connexion with co-operative cheese-making the merit of having founded the first “cheesery” or cheese factory is generally credited to Jesse Williams, who lived near Rome, Oneida county, N.Y. The system, therefore, was of American origin. Williams was a skilled cheese-maker, and the produce of his dairy sold so freely, at prices over the average, that he increased his output of cheese by adding to his own supply of milk other quantities which he obtained from his neighbours. His example was so widely followed that by the year 1866 there had been established close upon 500 cheese factories in New York state alone. In 1870 two co-operative cheeseries were at work in England, one in the town of Derby and one at Longford in the same county. There are now thousands of cheeseries in the United States and Canada, and also many “creameries,” or butter factories, for the making of high-class butter.

In connection with cooperative cheese-making, the credit for founding the first "cheesery" or cheese factory typically goes to Jesse Williams, who lived near Rome, Oneida County, NY. Therefore, this system originated in America. Williams was a skilled cheese-maker, and the products from his dairy sold so well, at prices above average, that he increased his cheese production by supplementing his own milk supply with additional quantities sourced from his neighbors. His example was so widely adopted that by 1866, nearly 500 cheese factories had been established in New York State alone. By 1870, two cooperative cheeseries were operating in England, one in the town of Derby and another in Longford in the same county. Today, there are thousands of cheeseries in the United States and Canada, as well as many “creameries,” or butter factories, dedicated to producing high-quality butter.

The first creamery was that of Alanson Slaughter, and it was built near Wallkill, Orange county, N.Y., in 1861, or ten years later than the first cheese factory; it dealt daily with the milk of 375 cows. Cheeseries and creameries would almost certainly have become more numerous than they are in England but for the rapidly expanding urban trade in country milk. The development of each, indeed, has been contemporaneous since 1871, and they are found to work well in conjunction one with the other—that is to say, a factory is useful for converting surplus milk into cheese or butter when the milk trade is overstocked, whilst the trade affords a convenient avenue for the sale of milk whenever this may happen to be preferable to the making of cheese or butter. Extensive dealers in milk arrange for its conversion into cheese or butter, as the case may be, at such times as the milk market needs relief, and in this way a cheesery serves as a sort of economic safety-valve to the milk trade. The same cannot always be said of creameries, because the machine-skimmed milk of some of these establishments has been far too much used to the prejudice of the legitimate milk trade in urban districts. Be this as it may, the operations of cheeseries and creameries in conjunction with the milk trade have led to the diminution of home dairying. A rapidly increasing population has maintained, and probably increased, its consumption of milk, which has obviously diminished the farmhouse production of cheese, and also of butter. The foreign competitor has been less successful with cheese than with butter, for he is unable to produce an article qualified to compete with the best that is made in Great Britain. In the case of butter, on the other hand, the imported article, though not ever surpassing the best home-made, is on the average much better, especially as regards uniformity of quality. Colonial and foreign producers, however, send into the British markets as a rule only the best of their butter, as they are aware that their inferior grades would but injure the reputation their products have acquired.

The first creamery was started by Alanson Slaughter, and it was built near Wallkill, Orange County, N.Y., in 1861, which was ten years after the first cheese factory. It handled the milk from 375 cows every day. There would likely be more cheeseries and creameries in England, but the quickly growing urban demand for country milk has held back their growth. The development of both has actually happened alongside each other since 1871, and they work well together. For example, a factory can convert surplus milk into cheese or butter when the milk market is overloaded, while also providing a way to sell milk when it's better to do that than to make cheese or butter. Major milk dealers arrange to turn their milk into cheese or butter when the milk market needs a boost, and in this way, a cheesery acts as an economic safety valve for the milk trade. The same isn't always true for creameries, because the machine-skimmed milk from some of these places has been overused, affecting the traditional milk trade in cities. Regardless, the operations of cheeseries and creameries alongside the milk trade have contributed to a decline in home dairying. A rapidly growing population has kept, and likely increased, its milk consumption, which has clearly reduced the production of cheese and butter in farmhouses. Foreign competitors have struggled more with cheese than with butter, as they can't produce cheese that competes with the best made in Great Britain. When it comes to butter, however, the imported products, while not quite matching the best homemade options, are generally of higher quality, especially in terms of consistency. Nonetheless, foreign and colonial producers typically only send the best butter to British markets, knowing that lower-grade products would damage the reputation they have built.

There are no official statistics concerning dairy factories in Great Britain, and such figures relating to Ireland were issued for the first time in 1901. The number of dairy factories in Ireland in 1900 was returned at 506, comprising 333 in Munster, 92 in Ulster, 52 in Leinster and 29 in Connaught. Of the total number of factories, 495 received milk only, 9 milk and cream and 2 cream only. As to ownership, 219 were joint-stock concerns, 190 were maintained by co-operative farmers and 97 were proprietary. In the year ended 30th September 1900 these factories used up nearly 121 million gallons of milk, namely, 94 in Munster, 14 in Ulster, 7 in Leinster and 6 in Connaught. The number of centrifugal cream-separators in the factories was 985, of which 889 were worked by steam, 79 by water, 9 by horse-power and 8 by hand-power. The number of hands permanently employed was 3653, made up of 976 in Munster, 279 in Leinster, 278 in Ulster and 120 in Connaught. The year’s output was returned at 401,490 cwt. of butter, 439 cwt. of cheese (made from whole milk) and 46,253 gallons of cream. In most cases the skim-milk is returned to the farmers. A return of the number of separators used in private establishments gave a total of 899, comprising 693 in Munster, 157 in Leinster, 39 in Ulster and 10 in Connaught. In factories and private establishments together as many as 1884 separators were thus accounted for. Much of the factory butter would be sent into the markets of Great Britain, though some would no doubt be retained for local consumption. A great improvement in the quality of Irish butter has recently been noticeable in the exhibits entered at the London dairy show.

There are no official statistics about dairy factories in Great Britain, and figures for Ireland were published for the first time in 1901. In 1900, the number of dairy factories in Ireland was recorded at 506, including 333 in Munster, 92 in Ulster, 52 in Leinster, and 29 in Connaught. Of the total number of factories, 495 received milk only, 9 handled both milk and cream, and 2 dealt only with cream. In terms of ownership, 219 were joint-stock companies, 190 were run by cooperative farmers, and 97 were privately owned. For the year ending September 30, 1900, these factories used nearly 121 million gallons of milk: 94 million in Munster, 14 million in Ulster, 7 million in Leinster, and 6 million in Connaught. There were 985 centrifugal cream-separators in the factories, with 889 powered by steam, 79 by water, 9 by horsepower, and 8 by hand. The number of people permanently employed was 3,653, consisting of 976 in Munster, 279 in Leinster, 278 in Ulster, and 120 in Connaught. The total output for the year was reported at 401,490 cwt. of butter, 439 cwt. of cheese (made from whole milk), and 46,253 gallons of cream. In most cases, the skim milk is returned to the farmers. A count of separators used in private establishments totaled 899, with 693 in Munster, 157 in Leinster, 39 in Ulster, and 10 in Connaught. Together, factories and private establishments accounted for a total of 1,884 separators. Much of the factory butter would be sent to markets in Great Britain, although some would likely be kept for local consumption. Recently, a significant improvement in the quality of Irish butter has been noticeable in the exhibits presented at the London dairy show.

Adulteration of Dairy Produce14

Adulteration of Dairy Products __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

The Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, which came into operation on the 1st of January 1900, contains several sections relating to the trade in dairy produce in the United Kingdom. Section 1 imposes penalties in the case of the importation of produce insufficiently marked, such as (a) margarine or margarine-cheese, except in passages conspicuously marked “Margarine” or “Margarine-cheese”; (b) adulterated or impoverished butter (other than margarine) or adulterated or impoverished milk or cream, except in packages or cans conspicuously marked with a name or description indicating that the butter or milk or cream has been so treated; (c) condensed separated or skimmed milk, except in tins or other receptacles which bear a label whereon the words “machine-skimmed milk” or “skimmed milk” are printed in large and legible type. For the purposes of this section an article of food is deemed to be adulterated or impoverished if it has been mixed with any other substance, or if any part of it has been abstracted, so as in either case to affect injuriously its quality, substance, or nature; provided that an article of food shall not be deemed to be adulterated by reason only of the addition of any preservative or colouring matter of such a nature and in such quantity as not to render the article injurious to health. Section 7 provides that every occupier of a manufactory of margarine or margarine-cheese, and every wholesale dealer in such substances, shall keep a register showing the quantity and destination of each consignment of such substances sent out from his manufactory or place of business, and this register shall be open to the inspection of any officer of the board of agriculture. Any such officer shall have power to enter at all reasonable times any such manufactory, and to inspect any process of manufacture therein, and to take samples for analysis. Section 8 is of much practical importance, as it limits the quantity of butter-fat which may be contained in margarine; it states that it shall be unlawful to manufacture, sell, expose for sale or import any margarine the fat of which contains more than 10% of butter-fat, and every person who manufactures, sells, exposes for sale or imports any margarine which contains more than that percentage shall be guilty of an offence under the Margarine Act 1887. For the purposes of the act margarine-cheese is defined as “any substance, whether compound or otherwise, which is prepared in imitation of cheese, and which contains fat not derived from milk”; whilst cheese is defined as “the substance usually known as cheese, containing no fat derived otherwise than from milk.” The so-called “filled” cheese of American origin, in which the butter-fat of the milk is partially or wholly replaced by some other fat, would come under the head of “margarine-cheese.” In making such cheese a cheap form of fat, usually of animal origin, but sometimes vegetable, is added to and incorporated with the skim-milk, and thus takes the place previously occupied by the genuine butter-fat. The act is regarded by some as defective in that it does not prohibit the artificial colouring of margarine to imitate butter.

The Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, which started on January 1, 1900, includes several sections about the trade in dairy products in the United Kingdom. Section 1 sets penalties for importing products that aren't properly labeled, such as (a) margarine or margarine-cheese, unless they're marked clearly as “Margarine” or “Margarine-cheese”; (b) adulterated or low-quality butter (other than margarine) or adulterated or low-quality milk or cream, unless they're in packages or cans clearly labeled with a name or description indicating that the butter or milk or cream has been treated this way; (c) condensed separated or skimmed milk, unless they're in tins or other containers that have labels stating “machine-skimmed milk” or “skimmed milk” in large, readable type. For this section, a food product is considered adulterated or low-quality if it's mixed with any other substance or if any part of it has been removed, affecting its quality, substance, or nature; however, a food product is not considered adulterated just because a preservative or coloring agent has been added in a way that doesn't make it harmful to health. Section 7 states that every owner of a margarine or margarine-cheese factory and every wholesale dealer in these substances must keep a register showing the amount and destination of each shipment sent out from their factory or business location, and this register must be available for inspection by any officer of the board of agriculture. Such an officer has the authority to enter any factory at reasonable times to inspect the manufacturing process and take samples for analysis. Section 8 is very important because it limits the amount of butter-fat that margarine can contain; it states that it's illegal to manufacture, sell, display for sale, or import any margarine that has more than 10% butter-fat, and anyone who does so is committing an offence under the Margarine Act 1887. For the purpose of the act, margarine-cheese is defined as “any substance, whether compound or not, that is made to imitate cheese and contains fat not derived from milk”; while cheese is defined as “the substance usually known as cheese, containing no fat derived from anything other than milk.” The so-called “filled” cheese from America, where the butter-fat in the milk is partly or entirely replaced with other fat, falls under the category of “margarine-cheese.” In making this cheese, a cheaper fat, usually from animal sources but sometimes from vegetables, is added to the skim milk, replacing the genuine butter-fat. Some people consider the act flawed because it doesn’t prevent the artificial coloring of margarine to look like butter.

In connexion with this act a departmental committee was appointed in 1900 “to inquire and report as to what regulations, if any, may with advantage be made by the board of agriculture under section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, for 755 determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of genuine milk or cream, or what addition of extraneous matter or proportion of water, in any sample of milk (including condensed milk) or cream, shall for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that the milk or cream is not genuine.” Much evidence of the highest interest to dairy-farmers was taken, and subsequently published as a Blue-Book (Cd. 484). The report of the committee (Cd. 491) included the following “recommendations,” which were signed by all the members excepting one:—

In connection with this act, a departmental committee was appointed in 1900 “to inquire and report on what regulations, if any, could be beneficially established by the Board of Agriculture under Section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, for 755 determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of genuine milk or cream, or what addition of foreign matter or proportion of water in any sample of milk (including condensed milk) or cream, should, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, raise a presumption, until proven otherwise, that the milk or cream is not genuine.” A significant amount of highly relevant evidence for dairy farmers was collected and later published as a Blue-Book (Cd. 484). The committee's report (Cd. 491) included the following “recommendations,” which were signed by all members except one:—

I. That regulations under section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899 be made by the board of agriculture with respect to milk (including condensed milk) and cream.

I. That regulations under section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899 be established by the board of agriculture regarding milk (including condensed milk) and cream.

II.

II.

(a) That in the case of any milk (other than skimmed, separated or condensed milk) the total milk-solids in which on being dried at 100° C. do not amount to 12% a presumption shall be raised, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is deficient in the normal constituents of genuine milk.

(a) In the case of any milk (other than skimmed, separated, or condensed milk), if the total milk solids, when dried at 100° C, do not reach 12%, it will be presumed, until proven otherwise, that the milk is lacking in the normal components of genuine milk.

(b) That any milk (other than skimmed, separated or condensed milk) the total milk-solids in which are less than 12%, and in which the amount of milk-fat is less than 3.25%, shall be deemed to be deficient in milk-fat as to raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that it has been mixed with separated milk or water, or that some portion of its normal content of milk-fat has been removed. In calculating the percentage amount of deficiency of fat the analyst shall have regard to the above-named limit of 3.25% of milk-fat.

(b) Any milk (excluding skimmed, separated, or condensed milk) with total milk solids less than 12% and milk fat below 3.25% will be considered deficient in milk fat, creating a presumption—unless proven otherwise—that it has been mixed with separated milk or water, or that some of its usual milk fat content has been taken out. When calculating the percentage of fat deficiency, the analyst will take into account the previously mentioned limit of 3.25% milk fat.

(c) That any milk (other than skimmed, separated or condensed milk) the total milk-solids in which are less than 12%, and in which the amount of non-fatty milk-solids is less than 8.5%, shall be deemed to be so deficient in normal constituents as to raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that it has been mixed with water. In calculating the percentage amount of admixed water the analyst shall have regard to the above-named limit of 8.5% of non-fatty milk-solids, and shall further take into account the extent to which the milk-fat may exceed 3.25%.

(c) Any milk (other than skim, separated, or condensed milk) that has a total milk solids content of less than 12%, and a non-fatty milk solids content of less than 8.5%, will be considered so lacking in normal components that it raises a presumption, until proven otherwise, that it has been mixed with water. When calculating the percentage of added water, the analyst shall consider the limit of 8.5% for non-fatty milk solids and also account for how much the milk fat may exceed 3.25%.

III. That the artificial thickening of cream by any addition of gelatin or other substance shall raise a presumption that the cream is not genuine.

III. The artificial thickening of cream by adding gelatin or any other substance will create a presumption that the cream is not authentic.

IV. That any skimmed or separated milk in which the total milk-solids are less than 9% shall be deemed to be so deficient in normal constituents as to raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that it has been mixed with water.

IV. Skimmed or separated milk that contains less than 9% total milk solids will be considered deficient in normal components, creating an assumption, until proven otherwise, that it has been mixed with water.

V. That any condensed milk (other than that labelled “machine-skimmed milk” or “skimmed milk,” in conformity with section 11 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899) in which either the amount of milk-fat is less than 10%, or the amount of non-fatty milk-solids is less than 25%, shall be deemed to be so deficient in some of the normal constituents of milk as to raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that it is not genuine.

V. Any condensed milk (except for those labeled “machine-skimmed milk” or “skimmed milk,” according to section 11 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899) that has either less than 10% milk fat or less than 25% non-fat milk solids will be considered deficient in some of the normal components of milk. This will raise a presumption, until proven otherwise, that it is not genuine.

The committee further submitted the following expressions of opinion on points raised before them in evidence:—

The committee also provided the following opinions on the issues presented to them as evidence:—

(a) That it is desirable to call the attention of those engaged in the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts to the necessity of adopting effective measures to prevent any addition of water, separated or condensed milk, or other extraneous matter, for the purpose of reducing the quality of genuine milk to any limits fixed by regulation of the board of agriculture.

(a) It is important to remind those involved in enforcing the Food and Drugs Acts about the need to implement effective measures to prevent the addition of water, separated or condensed milk, or any other foreign substances, with the aim of lowering the quality of genuine milk to any levels set by the regulations of the board of agriculture.

(b) That it is desirable that steps should be taken with the view of identifying or “ear-marking” separated milk by the addition of some suitable and innocuous substance, and by the adoption of procedure similar to that provided by section 7 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899, in regard to margarine.

(b) It is recommended that actions be taken to identify or “ear-mark” separated milk by adding a suitable and harmless substance, following a procedure similar to what is outlined in section 7 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899 concerning margarine.

(c) That it is desirable that, so far as may be found practicable, the procedure adopted in collecting, forwarding, and retaining pending examination, samples of milk (including condensed milk) and cream under the Food and Drugs Acts should be uniform.

(c) That it is desirable that, as much as possible, the process used for collecting, sending, and keeping samples of milk (including condensed milk) and cream for examination under the Food and Drugs Acts should be consistent.

(d) That it is desirable that, so far as may be found practicable, the methods of analysis used in the examination of samples of milk (including condensed milk) or cream taken under the Food and Drugs Acts should be uniform.

(d) It is important that, as much as possible, the methods used to analyze samples of milk (including condensed milk) or cream taken under the Food and Drugs Acts should be consistent.

(e) That it is desirable in the case of condensed milk (other than that labelled “machine-skimmed milk” or “skimmed milk,” in conformity with section 11 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899) that the label should state the amount of dilution required to make the proportion of milk-fat equal to that found in uncondensed milk containing not less than 3.25% of milk-fat.

(e) It is important that for condensed milk (except for those labeled “machine-skimmed milk” or “skimmed milk,” according to section 11 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899) the label should indicate how much water is needed to bring the milk-fat content up to the level found in regular milk that has at least 3.25% milk-fat.

(f) That it is desirable in the case of condensed whole milk to limit, and in the case of condensed machine-skimmed milk to exclude, the addition of sugar.

(f) It is preferable to limit the addition of sugar in condensed whole milk and to exclude it completely in condensed machine-skimmed milk.

(g) That the official standardizing of the measuring vessels commercially used in the testing of milk is desirable.

(g) That it is important to officially standardize the measuring containers used commercially in milk testing.

In the minority report, signed by Mr Geo. Barham, the most important clauses are the following:—

In the minority report, signed by Mr. Geo. Barham, the most important points are the following:—

(a) That in the case of any milk (other than skimmed, separated or condensed milk) the total milk-solids in which are less than 11.75%, and in which, during the months of July to February inclusive, the amount of milk-fat is less than 3%, and in the case of any milk which during the months of March to June inclusive shall fall below the above-named limit for total solids, and at the same time shall contain less than 2.75% of fat, it shall be deemed that such milk is so deficient in its normal constituent of fat as to raise a presumption, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine.

(a) If any milk (except skimmed, separated, or condensed milk) has total milk solids of less than 11.75%, and during the months from July to February, the amount of milk fat is less than 3%, or if any milk during the months from March to June falls below the above limit for total solids and contains less than 2.75% fat, it will be considered that this milk is so lacking in its normal fat content that it raises a presumption, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until proven otherwise, that the milk is not genuine.

(b) That any milk (other than skimmed, separated or condensed milk) the total milk-solids in which are less than 11.75%, and in which the amount of non-fatty solids is less than 8.5%, shall be deemed to be so deficient in its normal constituents as to raise a presumption, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine. In calculating the amount of the deficiency the analyst shall take into account the extent to which the milk-fat exceeds the limits above named.

(b) Any milk (other than skimmed, separated, or condensed milk) that has a total milk solids content of less than 11.75% and a non-fatty solids content of less than 8.5% will be considered so lacking in its normal components that it raises a presumption, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until proven otherwise, that the milk is not genuine. In determining the deficiency, the analyst will consider how much the milk fat exceeds the specified limits.

(c) That any skimmed or separated milk in which the total milk-solids are less than 8.75% shall be deemed to be so deficient in its normal constituents as to raise a presumption, for the purpose of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine.

(c) Any skimmed or separated milk that has less than 8.75% total milk solids will be considered deficient in its normal components, leading to an assumption, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, that the milk is not genuine, unless proven otherwise.

Much controversy arose out of the publication of these reports, the opinion most freely expressed being that the standard recommended in the majority report was too high. The difficulty of the problem is illustrated by, for example, the diverse legal standards for milk that prevail in the United States, where the prescribed percentage of fat in fresh cows’ milk ranges from 2.5 in Rhode Island to 3.5 in Georgia and Minnesota, and 3.7 (in the winter months) in Massachusetts, and the prescribed total solids range from 12 in several states (11.5 in Ohio during May and June) up to 13 in others. Standards are recognized in twenty-one of the states, but the remaining states have no laws prescribing standards for dairy products. That the public discussion of the reports of the committee was effective is shown by the following regulations which appeared in the London Gazette on the 6th of August 1901, and fixed the limit of fat at 3%:—

Much controversy arose from the publication of these reports, with many people arguing that the standard suggested in the majority report was too high. The complexity of the issue is highlighted by the different legal standards for milk across the United States, where the required percentage of fat in fresh cow's milk ranges from 2.5% in Rhode Island to 3.5% in Georgia and Minnesota, and 3.7% (in the winter months) in Massachusetts. The required total solids vary from 12% in several states (11.5% in Ohio during May and June) to up to 13% in others. Standards are recognized in twenty-one states, while the remaining states have no laws setting standards for dairy products. The impact of public discussion on the committee's reports is evident in the following regulations published in the London Gazette on August 6, 1901, which established the fat limit at 3%:—

The board of agriculture, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, do hereby make the following regulations:—

The board of agriculture, using the authority given to them by section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, hereby establishes the following regulations:—

1. Where a sample of milk (not being milk sold as skimmed, or separated or condensed milk) contains less than 3% of milk-fat, it shall be presumed for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine, by reason of the abstraction therefrom of milk-fat, or the addition thereto of water.

1. If a sample of milk (not sold as skimmed, separated, or condensed milk) has less than 3% milk fat, it will be assumed for the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until proven otherwise, that the milk is not genuine due to the removal of milk fat or the addition of water.

2. Where a sample of milk (not being milk sold as skimmed, or separated or condensed milk) contains less than 8.5% of milk-solids other than milk-fat, it shall be presumed for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine, by reason of the abstraction therefrom of milk-solids other than milk-fat, or the addition thereto of water.

2. If a sample of milk (other than milk sold as skimmed, separated, or condensed) has less than 8.5% of milk solids excluding milk fat, it will be assumed, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until proven otherwise, that the milk is not genuine because it has had milk solids other than milk fat removed or water added to it.

3. Where a sample of skimmed or separated milk (not being condensed milk) contains less than 9% of milk-solids, it shall be presumed for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine, by reason of the abstraction therefrom of milk-solids other than milk-fat, or the addition thereto of water.

3. If a sample of skimmed or separated milk (not including condensed milk) has less than 9% milk solids, it will be assumed, for the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts from 1875 to 1899, until proven otherwise, that the milk is not authentic, due to the removal of milk solids other than milk fat, or the addition of water.

4. These regulations shall extend to Great Britain.

4. These rules will apply to Great Britain.

5. These regulations shall come into operation on the 1st of September 1901.

5. These regulations will take effect on September 1, 1901.

6. These regulations may be cited as the Sale of Milk Regulations 1901.

6. These rules may be referred to as the Sale of Milk Regulations 1901.

In July 1901 another departmental committee was appointed by the board of agriculture to inquire and report as to what regulations, if any, might with advantage be made under section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, for determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of butter, or what addition of extraneous matter, or proportion of water in any sample of butter should, for the purpose of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, 756 that the butter is not genuine. As bearing upon this point reference may be made to a report of the dairy division of the United States department of agriculture on experimental exports of butter, in the appendix to which are recorded the results of the analyses of many samples of butter of varied origin. First, as to American butters, 19 samples were analysed in Wisconsin, 17 in Iowa, 5 in Minnesota and 2 in Vermont, at the respective experiment stations of the states named. The amount of moisture throughout was low, and the quantity of fat correspondingly high. In no case was there more than 15% of water, and only 4 samples contained more than 14%. On the other hand, 11 samples had less than 10%, the lowest being a pasteurized butter from Ames, Iowa, with only 6.72% of water. The average amount of water in the total 43 samples was 11.24%. The fat varies almost inversely as the water, small quantities of curd and ash having to be allowed for. The largest quantity of fat was 91.23% in the sample containing only 6.72% of water. The lowest proportion of fat was 80.18%, whilst the average of all the samples shows 85.9%, which is regarded as a good market standard. The curd varied from 0.55 to 1.7%, with an average of 0.98. This small amount indicates superior keeping qualities. Theoretically there should be no curd present, but this degree of perfection is never attained in practice. It was desired to have the butter contain about 2½% of salt, but the quantity of ash in the 43 samples ranged from 0.83 to 4.79%, the average being 1.88. Analyses made at Washington of butters other than American showed a general average of 13.22% of water over 28 samples representing 14 countries. The lowest were 10.25% in a Canadian butter and 10.38 in an Australian sample. The highest was 19.1% in an Irish butter, which also contained the remarkably large quantity of 8.28% of salt. Three samples of Danish butter contained 12.65, 14.27 and 15.14% respectively of water. French and Italian unsalted butter included, the former 15.46 and the latter 14.41% of water, and yet appeared to be unusually dry. In 7 samples of Irish butters the percentages of water ranged from 11.48 to 19.1. Of the 28 foreign butters 15 were found to contain preservatives. All 5 samples from Australia, the 2 from France, the single ones from Italy, New Zealand, Argentina, and England, and 4 out of the 7 from Ireland, contained boric acid.

In July 1901, another committee was appointed by the board of agriculture to investigate and report on what regulations could be beneficially established under section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899. This was to determine what level of deficiency in the normal components of butter, or what amount of foreign substances, or proportion of water in any butter sample should, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, raise a presumption—until proven otherwise—that the butter is not genuine. To shed light on this, one can refer to a report from the dairy division of the United States Department of Agriculture on experimental butter exports, which includes analyses from various butter samples. First, regarding American butters, 19 samples were analyzed in Wisconsin, 17 in Iowa, 5 in Minnesota, and 2 in Vermont, at the respective state experiment stations. The moisture content was generally low, and the fat content was correspondingly high. In no instance was there more than 15% water, and only 4 samples contained more than 14%. Conversely, 11 samples had less than 10% water, with the lowest being a pasteurized butter from Ames, Iowa, containing only 6.72% water. The average water content across the 43 samples was 11.24%. The fat content varied inversely with the water, needing to account for small amounts of curd and ash. The highest fat quantity was 91.23% in the sample with just 6.72% water. The lowest fat percentage was 80.18%, while the average across all samples was 85.9%, considered a solid market standard. The curd ranged from 0.55 to 1.7%, with an average of 0.98%, indicating excellent keeping qualities. While theoretically, there should be no curd present, such perfection is rarely achieved in reality. They aimed for the butter to contain around 2.5% salt, but the ash content in the 43 samples ranged from 0.83 to 4.79%, with an average of 1.88%. Analyses conducted in Washington on non-American butters indicated a general average of 13.22% water across 28 samples from 14 countries. The lowest were 10.25% in a Canadian butter and 10.38% in an Australian sample, while the highest was 19.1% in an Irish butter, which also included a notably high salt content of 8.28%. Three Danish butter samples had water contents of 12.65%, 14.27%, and 15.14%, respectively. French and Italian unsalted butters had 15.46% and 14.41% of water, yet appeared to be unusually dry. Among 7 samples of Irish butters, water percentages ranged from 11.48 to 19.1. Out of the 28 foreign butters, 15 were found to contain preservatives. All 5 samples from Australia, the 2 from France, the single samples from Italy, New Zealand, Argentina, and England, and 4 out of the 7 from Ireland contained boric acid.

The Milk Trade

The Dairy Industry

The term “milk trade” has come to signify the great traffic in country milk for the supply of dwellers in urban districts. Prior to 1860 this traffic was comparatively small or in its infancy. Thirty years earlier it could not have been brought into existence, for it is an outcome of the great network of railways which was spread over the face of the country in the latter half of the 19th century. It affords an instructive illustration of the process of commercial evolution which has been fostered by the vast increase of urban population within the period indicated. It is a tribute to the spirit of sanitary reform which—as an example in one special direction—has brought about the disestablishment of urban cow-sheds and the consequent demand for milk produced in the shires. London, in fact, is now being regularly supplied with fresh milk from places anywhere within 150 m., and the milk traffic on the railways, not only to London but to other great centres, is an important item. A factor in the development of the milk trade must no doubt be sought in the outbreak of cattle plague in 1865, for it was then that the dairymen of the metropolis were compelled to seek milk all over England, and the capillary refrigerator being invented soon after, the production of milk has remained ever since in the hands of dairymen living mainly at a distance from the towns supplied.

The phrase “milk trade” now refers to the substantial movement of country milk to supply people living in cities. Before 1860, this trade was fairly limited or just starting out. Thirty years earlier, it wouldn’t have even been possible, as it emerged from the extensive network of railways that grew across the country in the latter half of the 19th century. It serves as a useful example of the commercial evolution driven by the significant increase in urban population during that time. It also reflects the spirit of sanitary reform that—specifically in this area—led to the end of urban cow-sheds and created a demand for milk produced in rural areas. Today, London is regularly supplied with fresh milk from locations up to 150 miles away, and the milk traffic on railways, not just to London but to other major cities, has become a significant industry. The growth of the milk trade can certainly be linked to the cattle plague outbreak in 1865, which forced milk producers in the city to look for milk all around England. With the invention of the capillary refrigerator shortly after, the production of milk has since remained primarily in the hands of dairymen who mainly live far from the cities they supply.

This great change in country dairying, involving the continuous export of enormous quantities of milk from the farms, has been accompanied by subsidiary changes in the management of dairy-farms, and has necessitated the extensive purchase of feeding-stuffs for the production of milk, especially in winter-time. It is probable that, in this way, a gradual improvement of the soil on such farms has been effected, and the corn-growing soils of distant countries are adding to the store of fertility of soils in the British Isles. Country roads, exposed to the wear and tear of a comparatively new traffic, are lively at morn and eve with the rattle of vehicles conveying fresh milk from the farms to the railway stations. Most of these changes were brought about within the limits of the last third of the 19th century.

This significant shift in country dairying, involving the ongoing export of huge amounts of milk from farms, has come with related changes in how dairy farms are managed and has required the large purchase of feed for milk production, especially in winter. It's likely that this has led to a gradual improvement of the soil on these farms, and the grain-producing regions of far-off countries are boosting the fertility of soils in the British Isles. Country roads, facing the wear and tear of relatively new traffic, are bustling in the morning and evening with the sounds of vehicles transporting fresh milk from farms to railway stations. Most of these changes took place during the last third of the 19th century.

In the case of London the daily supply of a perishable article such as milk, which must be delivered to the consumer within a few hours of its production, to a population of five millions, is an undertaking of very great magnitude, especially when it is considered that only a comparatively minute proportion of the supply is produced in the metropolitan area itself. To meet the demand of the London consumer some 5000 dairies proper exist, as well as a large number of businesses where milk is sold in conjunction with other commodities. It has been computed that some 12,000 traders are engaged in the business of milk-selling in the metropolis, and the number of persons employed in its distribution, &c., cannot be fewer than 25,000. The amount of capital involved is very great, and it may be mentioned that the paid-up capital of six of the principal distributing and retail dairy companies amounts to upwards of one million sterling. The most significant feature in connexion with the milk-supply of the metropolis at the beginning of the 20th century is the gradual extinction of the town “cowkeeper”—the retailer who produces the milk he sells. The facilities afforded by the railway companies, the favourable rates which have been secured for the transport of milk, and the more enlightened methods of its treatment after production, have made it possible for milk produced under more favourable conditions to be brought from considerable distances and delivered to the retailer at a price lower than that at which it has been possible to produce it in the metropolis itself. As a result, the number of milk cows in the county of London diminished from 10,000 in 1889 to 5144 in 1900, the latter, on an estimated production of 700 gallons per cow—the average production of stall-fed town cows—representing a yearly milk yield of 3,600,000 gallons. How small a proportion this is of the total supply will be gathered from the fact that the annual quantity of milk delivered in London on the Great Western line amounts to some 11,000,000 gallons, whilst the London & North-Western railway delivers 9,000,000, and the Midland railway at St Pancras 5,000,000, and at others of its London stations about 1,000,000, making 6,000,000 in all. The London & South-Western railway brings upwards of 8,000,000 gallons to London, a quantity of 7,500,000 gallons is carried by the Great Northern railway, and the Great Eastern railway is responsible for 7,000,000. The London, Brighton & South Coast railway delivers 1,000,000 gallons, and the South-Eastern & Chatham and the London & Tilbury railways carry approximately 1,000,000 gallons between them. A large quantity of milk is also carried in by local lines from farms in the vicinity of London and delivered at the local stations, and a quantity is also brought by the Great Central railway. In addition to this, milk is taken into London by carts from farms in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. A computation of the total milk-supply of the metropolis reveals a quantity approximating to 60,000,000 gallons per annum, or rather more than a million gallons per week, which, taking 500 gallons as the average yearly production of the cows contributing to this supply, represents the yield of at least 120,000 cows. The growth of the supply of country milk to London may be judged from the figures given by Mr George Barham, chairman of the Express Dairy Co. Ltd., in an article on “The Milk Trade” contributed to Professor Sheldon’s work on The Farm and Dairy. The quantities carried by the respective railways in 1889 are therein stated in gallons as:—Great Western, 9,000,000; London & North-Western, 7,000,000; Midland, 7,000,000; London & South-Western, 6,000,000; Great Northern, 3,000,000; Great Eastern, 3,000,000; the southern lines, 2,000,000. The increase, therefore, on these lines amounted to no less than 13,500,000 gallons per annum, or 36%. The diminished production in the metropolis itself amounted approximately only to 3,000,000 gallons, and it follows, therefore, that the consumption largely increased.

In London, the daily distribution of a perishable item like milk, which needs to reach consumers within a few hours of production, to a population of five million is a massive task, especially considering that only a small portion of the supply is produced within the city itself. To satisfy the demand from London consumers, there are about 5,000 dedicated dairies, along with many businesses that sell milk alongside other products. It is estimated that around 12,000 vendors are involved in selling milk in the city, and at least 25,000 people are employed in its distribution and related activities. The financial investment in this supply chain is significant, with six major dairy companies having a combined paid-up capital exceeding one million pounds. A key trend in the early 20th century regarding London's milk supply is the gradual decline of the city "cowkeeper"—the retailer who produces the milk they sell. The assistance from railway companies, favorable rates for transporting milk, and improved treatment methods after production have enabled milk produced under better conditions to be sourced from far away and sold to retailers at lower prices than those attainable within London itself. As a result, the number of milk cows in London reduced from 10,000 in 1889 to 5,144 in 1900, which, assuming an average yield of 700 gallons per cow (typical for urban cows), translates to an annual milk production of 3,600,000 gallons. This is a small fraction of the total supply, considering that the annual milk delivered to London via the Great Western line is around 11,000,000 gallons, with the London & North-Western railway supplying 9,000,000 gallons and the Midland railway delivering 5,000,000 gallons, plus another 1,000,000 from various London stations, totaling 6,000,000 gallons. The London & South-Western railway brings more than 8,000,000 gallons, while the Great Northern railway carries 7,500,000 gallons, and the Great Eastern railway accounts for 7,000,000 gallons. The London, Brighton & South Coast railway delivers 1,000,000 gallons, and the South-Eastern & Chatham and London & Tilbury railways transport around 1,000,000 gallons combined. Additionally, a significant amount of milk comes from local lines transporting it from nearby farms and by the Great Central railway. Milk is also brought into London by carts from farms around the city. The total milk supply for the metropolis is estimated at about 60,000,000 gallons per year, averaging more than a million gallons weekly, which represents a yield of at least 120,000 cows based on an average annual production of 500 gallons per cow. The expansion of country milk supply to London is highlighted by figures given by Mr. George Barham, chairman of Express Dairy Co. Ltd., in an article on "The Milk Trade" published in Professor Sheldon’s book on The Farm and Dairy. According to the data from 1889, the respective railways transported milk in the following volumes: Great Western, 9,000,000 gallons; London & North-Western, 7,000,000 gallons; Midland, 7,000,000 gallons; London & South-Western, 6,000,000 gallons; Great Northern, 3,000,000 gallons; Great Eastern, 3,000,000 gallons; and the southern lines, 2,000,000 gallons. Consequently, the increase in supply from these lines amounted to 13,500,000 gallons per year, or 36%. The reduction in milk production within London itself was roughly 3,000,000 gallons, indicating that overall consumption has significantly increased.

757

757

Previously to 1864 it was only possible to bring milk into London from short distances, but the introduction of the refrigerator has enabled milk to be brought from places as far removed from the metropolis as North Staffordshire, and it has even been received from Scotland. Practically the whole of the milk supplied to the metropolis is produced in England. Attempts have been made to introduce foreign milk, and in 1898 a company was formed to promote the sale of fresh milk from Normandy, but the enterprise did not succeed. The trade subsequently showed signs of reviving, owing probably to the increased cost of the home produced article, and during the winter season of 1900-1901 the largest quantity received into the kingdom in one week amounted to 10,000 gallons. Of recent years a large demand has sprung up for sterilized milk in bottles, and a considerable trade is also done in humanized milk, which is a milk preparation approximating in its chemical composition to human milk.

Before 1864, milk could only be brought into London from nearby areas, but with the advent of refrigeration, milk can now be transported from as far away as North Staffordshire and even Scotland. Almost all the milk supplied to the city comes from England. There have been efforts to import foreign milk, and in 1898, a company was created to sell fresh milk from Normandy, but that venture failed. The trade later showed signs of revival, likely due to rising costs for locally produced milk, and during the winter of 1900-1901, the highest amount brought into the country in one week reached 10,000 gallons. In recent years, there’s been a growing demand for sterilized milk in bottles, and a significant market has also developed for humanized milk, which is a milk product that closely resembles human milk in its chemical makeup.

Estimating the average yield of milk of each country cow at 500 gallons per annum, and assuming an average of 28 cows to each farm, as many as 4300 farmers are engaged in supplying London with milk; allotting ten cows to each milker, it needs 12 battalions of 1000 men each for this work alone. Some 3500 horses are required to convey the milk from the farms to the country railway stations. The chief sources of supply are in the counties of Derby, Stafford, Leicester, Northampton, Notts, Warwick, Bucks, Oxford, Gloucester, Berks, Wilts, Hants, Dorset, Essex, and Cambridge. It is not entirely owing to the railways that London’s enormous supply of milk has been rendered possible, for the milk must still have been produced in the immediate neighbourhood of the metropolis had not the method of reducing the temperature of the product by means of the refrigerator been devised. There are probably 5700 horses engaged in the delivery of milk in London, and more people are employed in this work than in milking the cows. One of the great difficulties the London dairyman has to contend with, and a cause of frequent anxiety to him, is associated with the rise and fall of the thermometer, for a movement to the extent of ten degrees one way or the other may diminish or increase the supply in an inverse ratio to the demand. Thus, at periods of extreme cold, the cows shrink in their yield of milk, while from the same cause the Londoner is demanding more, in an extra cup of coffee, &c. Again, at periods of extreme heat, which has the same effect on the cow’s production as extreme cold, the customer also demands an increased quantity of milk. Ten degrees fall of temperature in the summer will result in a lessened demand and an enlarged supply—to such an extent, indeed, that a single firm has been known to have had returned by its carriers some 600 gallons in one day. In such cases the cream separator is capable of rendering invaluable assistance. To make cheese in London in large quantities and at uncertain intervals has been found to be impracticable, while to set for cream a great bulk of milk is almost equally so. But now a considerable portion of what would otherwise be lost is saved by passing the milk through separators, and churning the cream into butter.

Estimating the average milk yield of each country cow at 500 gallons a year and assuming an average of 28 cows per farm, around 4,300 farmers supply London with milk. With ten cows assigned to each milker, it requires 12 battalions of 1,000 men each just for this work. About 3,500 horses are needed to transport the milk from the farms to country railway stations. The main sources of supply are in the counties of Derby, Stafford, Leicester, Northampton, Notts, Warwick, Bucks, Oxford, Gloucester, Berks, Wilts, Hants, Dorset, Essex, and Cambridge. It’s not solely due to the railways that London’s massive milk supply is possible; milk still needs to be produced close to the city, especially since the method of cooling the product with refrigeration has been developed. There are probably 5,700 horses involved in milk delivery in London, with more people employed in this than in milking the cows. One of the major challenges faced by London dairymen, and a frequent source of stress, is related to temperature fluctuations, as a shift of ten degrees one way or the other can inversely affect the supply and demand. During extreme cold, cows produce less milk just as Londoners demand more—like an extra cup of coffee. Conversely, during extreme heat, which similarly reduces cow milk production, customers also seek more milk. A ten-degree drop in summer temperatures results in decreased demand and increased supply, to the extent that one firm has reported returning as much as 600 gallons in a single day. In such cases, cream separators prove to be incredibly useful. Making cheese in large quantities and at unpredictable times in London has been found impractical, and setting a large volume of milk for cream is nearly as challenging. However, a significant portion of what would otherwise be wasted is now salvaged by passing the milk through separators and churning the cream into butter.

Previously to the enormous development of the urban trade in country milk, dairy farms were in the main self-sustaining in the matter of manures and feeding-stuffs, and the cropping of arable land was governed by routine. To-day, on the contrary, many dairy farms are run at high pressure by the help of purchased materials,—corn, cake, and manure,—and the land is cropped regardless of routine and independent of courses. Such crops, moreover, are grown—white straw crops, green crops, root crops—as are deemed likely to be most needed at the time when they are ready. Green crops,—“soiling” crops, as they are termed in North America,—consisting largely of vetches or tares (held up by stalks of oat plants grown amongst them), cabbages, and in some districts green maize, are used to supplement the failing grass-lands at the fall of the year, and root crops, especially mangel, are advantageously grown for the same purpose. For winter feeding the farm is made to yield what it will in the shape of meadow and clover hay, and of course root crops of the several kinds. This provision is supplemented by the purchase of, for example, brewers’ grains as a bulky food, and of oilcake and corn of many sorts as concentrated food.

Before the massive growth of urban demand for country milk, dairy farms mainly relied on their own resources for manure and feed, and crop rotation was done by habit. Today, however, many dairy farms operate under intense pressure, using purchased materials—like corn, cake, and manure—and they grow crops without following any set routine or rotation. These crops, such as white straw crops, green crops, and root crops, are grown based on what is expected to be most needed when they're ready. Green crops—referred to as “soiling” crops in North America—mainly consist of vetches or tares supported by oat plants, cabbages, and in some areas, green maize, and are used to supplement the diminishing grasslands in the fall. Root crops, especially mangel, are also grown for this purpose. For winter feeding, the farm produces what it can in terms of meadow and clover hay, along with various root crops. This is supplemented by purchasing bulky feeds like brewers’ grains, as well as concentrated feeds such as oilcake and various types of corn.

Table XI.Estimated Annual Production of Milk, Butter and Cheese in the United Kingdom for the Ten Years ended 31st December 1899.

Table 11.Estimated Annual Production of Milk, Butter, and Cheese in the United Kingdom for the Ten Years ended 31st December 1899.

Year
ended
December
31.
Cows and Heifers
in Milk or in
Calf on 4th June.
Cows
per 1000
of
Popu-
lation.
Cows and
Heifers giving
Milk all the
year round;
say 75% of
Total.
Influence of
Season.
Percentage
above or
below the
Average of
previous
10 Years.
Estimated Total
Quantity of
Milk produced
in the 52
Weeks, by 75%
of the Total
Herd, at 49
cwt. or 531
gallons per
Cow.
Estimated Total
Quantity of
Butter produced
in the 52
Weeks, taking 32%
of the Total
Milk to yield
80 ℔ of Butter
per Ton of
Milk.
Estimated Total
Quantity of
Cheese produced
in the 52
Weeks, taking 20%
of the Total
Milk to yield
220 ℔ of Cheese
per Ton of
Milk.
  No. No. No. %. Tons. Tons. Tons.
1890 3,956,220 105.5 2,967,165 +3.0 7,487,640 85,572 147,078
1891 4,117,707 108.9 3,088,281 Average. 7,566,288 86,472 148,624
1892 4,120,451 108.1 3,090,339 −5.6 7,147,337 81,684 140,394
1893 4,014,055 104.4 3,010,542 −9.0 6,712,004 76,709 131,843
1894 3,925,486 101.2 2,944,115 +6.3 7,667,505 87,628 150,611
1895 3,937,590 100.5 2,953,193 −3.5 6,982,087 79,652 137,148
1896 3,958,762 100.0 2,969,387 −4.0 6,983,999 79,817 130,000
1897 3,984,167 99.7 2,988,126 +3.1 7,547,856 86,261 148,260
1898 4,035,501 100.0 3,025,526 +3.2 7,645,105 87,372 150,171
1899 4,133,249 101.9 3,099,937 −3.5 7,329,027 83,760 130,020
10 Years
Average
4,018,318 103.0 3,013,660 −0.7 7,906,874 83,992 141,412

British Output, Imports and Exports of Dairy Produce

British Output, Imports, and Exports of Dairy Products

Whilst the quantity of imported butter and cheese consumed in the United Kingdom from year to year can be arrived at with a tolerable degree of accuracy, it is more difficult to form an estimate of the amounts of these articles annually produced at home. Various attempts have, however, from time to time been made by competent authorities to arrive approximately at the annual output of milk, butter and cheese in the United Kingdom, and the results are given by Messrs W. Weddel & Co. in their annual Dairy Produce Review. Table XI. shows the estimates for each of the ten years 1890 to 1899, the numbers in the second column of “cows and heifers in milk or in calf” being identical with those officially recorded in the agricultural returns. In thus estimating the quantity of milk, butter and cheese produced within the United Kingdom, the “average milking life” of a cow is taken to be four years, from which it follows that on the average one-fourth of the total herd has to be renewed every year by heifers with their first calf. This leaves 75% of the total herd giving milk throughout the year. Each cow of this 75% is estimated as yielding 49 cwt., or 531 gallons of milk annually. It is assumed that 15% of the total milk yield is used for the calf, 32% utilized for butter-making, 758 20% for cheese-making, and the remaining 33% consumed in the household as fresh milk. A ton of milk is estimated to produce 80 ℔ of butter or 220 ℔ of cheese. A gallon of milk weighs 10.33 ℔ (1013 ℔). The probable effects of each season upon the production have been taken into consideration in making these estimates, and it will be noticed that owing to the terrible drought of 1893 a reduction of 9% is made from the average. Accepting these estimates with due reservation,15 it is seen that the annual production of milk varied in the decade to the extent of nearly a million tons, the exact difference between the maximum of 7,667,505 tons in 1894 and the minimum of 6,712,004 tons in 1893 being 955,501 tons. The decennial averages are 7,906,874 tons of milk, 83,992 tons of butter, and 141,412 tons of cheese.

While we can estimate the amount of imported butter and cheese consumed in the United Kingdom fairly accurately each year, it's much harder to determine how much is produced domestically. Nonetheless, various experts have periodically tried to get a rough idea of the annual output of milk, butter, and cheese in the UK, with results published by Messrs W. Weddel & Co. in their annual Dairy Produce Review. Table XI provides estimates for each year from 1890 to 1899, and the figures in the second column for "cows and heifers in milk or in calf" match those officially reported in agricultural returns. To estimate the quantity of milk, butter, and cheese produced in the UK, the “average milking life” of a cow is assumed to be four years. This means that, on average, one-fourth of the total herd needs to be replaced each year by heifers giving birth to their first calf. Consequently, 75% of the total herd is assumed to be milking throughout the year. Each of these cows is estimated to produce 49 cwt., or 531 gallons of milk annually. It is believed that 15% of the total milk production is used for the calf, 32% for butter-making, 20% for cheese-making, and the remaining 33% is consumed at home as fresh milk. A ton of milk is estimated to yield 80 lbs of butter or 220 lbs of cheese. A gallon of milk weighs 10.33 lbs (1013 lbs). When making these estimates, the likely impacts of each season on production have been taken into account, and it's worth noting that due to the severe drought of 1893, there is a 9% reduction applied to the average. Accepting these estimates with due caution, it shows that the annual production of milk varied by nearly a million tons over the decade, with the maximum being 7,667,505 tons in 1894 and the minimum 6,712,004 tons in 1893—a difference of 955,501 tons. The decennial averages are 7,906,874 tons of milk, 83,992 tons of butter, and 141,412 tons of cheese.

Table XII. furnishes an estimate of the total consumption of butter in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1891 to 1900. Whilst the estimated home production did not vary greatly from year to year, the imports from colonial and foreign sources underwent almost continuous increase. The ten years’ average indicates 37.6% home-made, 7.3% imported colonial, and 55.1% imported foreign butter. But whereas at the beginning of the decade the proportions were 45.4% home-made, 1.5% colonial, and 53.2% foreign, at the end of the percentages were 32.8, 14.7 and 52.5 respectively. It thus appears that whilst the United Kingdom was able in 1891 to furnish nearly half of its requirements (45.4%), by 1900 it was unable to supply more than one-third (32.8%).

Table XII provides an estimate of the total butter consumption in the United Kingdom for each year from 1891 to 1900. While the estimated domestic production did not change much year to year, imports from colonial and foreign sources gradually increased. The average over ten years shows 37.6% homemade, 7.3% imported colonial, and 55.1% imported foreign butter. However, at the start of the decade, the breakdown was 45.4% homemade, 1.5% colonial, and 53.2% foreign, whereas by the end, the percentages were 32.8%, 14.7%, and 52.5%, respectively. Thus, it appears that while the United Kingdom could meet nearly half of its needs (45.4%) in 1891, by 1900 it could only supply a little over one-third (32.8%).

Table XII.Estimated Home Production and Imports of Butter into the United Kingdom for the Ten Years ended 30th June 1900.

Table 12.Estimated Domestic Production and Imports of Butter into the United Kingdom for the Ten Years ending 30th June 1900.

Year ended
30th June.
Home
Production,
estimated.
Imported
Colonial.
Imported
Foreign.
Total.
  Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons.
1891 84,961  2,883  99,598 187,442
1892 86,022  6,323 101,796 194,141
1893 84,078  9,408 105,712 199,198
1894 79,196 15,550 107,534 202,280
1895 82,168 17,807 116,730 216,705
1896 83,640 12,949 133,249 229,838
1897 79,734 18,111 138,800 236,645
1898 83,039 17,732 141,426 242,197
1899 87,326 22,443 142,193 251,962
1900 83,760 37,534 133,957 255,251
10 Years
Average
83,392 16,074 122,099 221,565

The rapid headway which colonial butter has made in British markets is shown by the fact that for the five years ended 30th of June 1900 the import had grown from 12,949 tons to 37,534 tons per annum, or an increase of 24,585 tons. It is during the mid-winter months that the colonial butter from Australasia arrives on the British markets, while that from Canada begins to arrive in July, and virtually ceases in the following January. The bulk of the Canadian butter reaches British markets during August, September and October; the bulk of the Australasian in December, January and February.

The quick progress of colonial butter in British markets is evident from the fact that for the five years ending June 30, 1900, imports increased from 12,949 tons to 37,534 tons per year, which is an increase of 24,585 tons. Colonial butter from Australasia arrives in British markets during the mid-winter months, while Canadian butter starts arriving in July and mostly stops by the following January. Most Canadian butter gets to British markets in August, September, and October, whereas most Australasian butter arrives in December, January, and February.

It appears to be demonstrated by the experience of the last decade of the 19th century that the United Kingdom is quite unable to turn out sufficient dairy produce to supply its own population. In the year ended 30th of June 1891 the total import of butter was 102,500 tons, and for the year ended 30th of June 1900 it was 170,700 tons, which shows an annual average increase in the decade of 6800 tons. This growth was on the whole very uniform, any disturbance in its regularity being attributable more to the deficient seasons in the colonies and foreign countries than to the bountiful seasons at home. Twice in the decade the import of butter from colonial sources fell off slightly from the previous year, namely, in 1896 and 1898, while only once was there any decrease in the foreign supply, and this occurred in 1900. In 1896 the colonial supply fell off by 5000 tons, principally owing to drought in Australia, but from foreign countries this deficiency was more than made good, as the increased import from these sources exceeded 16,500 tons. In 1900 the position was reversed, for while the foreign import fell away to the extent of over 8000 tons, the supply from the colonies exceeded that of 1899 by 15,000 tons, thus leaving a gain in the quantity of imported butter of nearly 7000 tons on the year. Table XII. shows that over the ten years, 1891-1900, the import of colonial butter was augmented by 34,600 tons, and that of foreign by 33,600 tons, so that the increased import is fairly divided between colonial and foreign sources. If, however, the last five years of the period be taken, it will be seen that the increases in the arrivals of colonial butter have far exceeded those from foreign countries. Between 1891 and 1900 the Australasian colonies increased their quota by 13,400 tons, and Canada by 11,100 tons. Of foreign countries, Denmark showed the greatest development in the supply of imported butter, which increased in the ten years by 28,678 tons. Next came Russia and Holland, with increases respectively of 7207 tons and 6589 tons. Sweden, which made steady progress from 1891 to 1896, subsequently declined, and in 1900 sent 1400 tons less than in 1891. France and Germany are rapidly falling away, and the latter country will soon cease its supply altogether. Up to 1896 it was 6000 tons annually; by 1900 it had fallen to 1850 tons. France, which in 1892 sent to the United Kingdom 29,000 tons, regularly declined, and in 1900 sent only 16,800. Among the countries sending the smaller quantities, Argentina, Belgium and Norway are all gradually increasing their supplies; but their totals are comparatively insignificant, as they together contributed in 1900 only 6400 tons out of a total foreign supply of 134,000 tons. The United States was erratic in its supplies during the decade, and up to 1900 had not made butter specially for export to the United Kingdom, as all the other foreign countries had done. Consequently it is only when supplies from elsewhere fail that American butter is sought for by British buyers. The large amount of salt in this butter, although suitable for the American palate, prevents its becoming popular in the United Kingdom.

It seems clear from the experience of the last decade of the 19th century that the United Kingdom is unable to produce enough dairy products to meet the needs of its population. In the year ending June 30, 1891, the total butter import was 102,500 tons, and for the year ending June 30, 1900, it was 170,700 tons, showing an annual average increase of 6,800 tons over the decade. This growth was mostly steady, with any fluctuations being more due to poor seasons in colonies and other countries rather than good seasons at home. The import of butter from colonial sources decreased slightly in 1896 and 1898, while there was only one drop in the foreign supply, which occurred in 1900. In 1896, colonial supplies fell by 5,000 tons mainly due to drought in Australia, but this shortfall was more than compensated by an increase of over 16,500 tons from foreign countries. In 1900, the situation reversed; while foreign imports dropped by more than 8,000 tons, the supply from the colonies surpassed that of 1899 by 15,000 tons, resulting in an overall gain of nearly 7,000 tons in imported butter for that year. Table XII shows that over the ten years from 1891 to 1900, the import of colonial butter increased by 34,600 tons, and that of foreign butter increased by 33,600 tons, suggesting that the increase in imports is fairly evenly split between colonial and foreign sources. However, looking at just the last five years of this period reveals that the rise in colonial butter supplies has greatly outpaced those from foreign countries. From 1891 to 1900, the Australasian colonies raised their share by 13,400 tons, while Canada increased by 11,100 tons. Denmark saw the most significant growth among foreign countries, increasing its butter supply by 28,678 tons over the ten years. Following Denmark were Russia and Holland, with increases of 7,207 tons and 6,589 tons, respectively. Sweden initially made steady progress from 1891 to 1896 but later declined, shipping 1,400 tons less in 1900 than in 1891. France and Germany are sharply reducing their exports, with Germany's supply dropping from 6,000 tons annually up to 1896 to just 1,850 tons by 1900. France, which sent 29,000 tons to the UK in 1892, consistently declined, sending only 16,800 tons in 1900. Among the countries sending smaller quantities, Argentina, Belgium, and Norway are all gradually increasing their shipments; however, their totals remain relatively small, contributing only 6,400 tons of the total foreign supply of 134,000 tons in 1900. The United States had an inconsistent supply during the decade and, by 1900, had not produced butter specifically for export to the UK, unlike other foreign countries. As a result, American butter is only sought after by British buyers when supplies from other sources run low. The high salt content in this butter, while appealing to American tastes, hinders its popularity in the UK.

Table XIII.Annual Imports of Butter into the United Kingdom, 1897-1900.

Table 13.Annual Imports of Butter into the United Kingdom, 1897-1900.

From 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900.
  Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. Cwt.
Denmark 1,334,726 1,465,030 1,430,052 1,486,342
Australasia 269,432 228,563 366,944 509,910
France 448,128 416,821 353,942 322,048
Holland 278,631 269,631 284,810 282,805
Russia* .. .. .. 209,738
Sweden 299,214 294,962 245,599 196,041
Canada 109,402 156,865 250,083 138,313
United States 154,196 66,712 159,137 56,046
Germany 51,761 41,231 36,953 36,042
Other countries 272,312 269,645 262,331 141,231
Total 3,217,802 3,209,153 3,389,851 3,378,516
  % % % %
Denmark 41.5 45.6 42.2 44.0
Australasia 8.4 7.1 10.8 15.1
France 13.9 13.0 10.5 9.5
Holland 8.7 8.4 8.4 8.4
Russia* .. .. .. 6.2
Sweden 9.3 9.2 7.2 5.8
Canada 3.4 4.9 7.4 4.1
United States 4.8 2.1 4.7 1.6
Germany 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.1
Other countries 8.4 8.4 7.7 4.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
* Not shown separately in the Trade and Navigation Returns prior to 1900.

The sources whence the United Kingdom receives butter from abroad are sufficiently indicated in Table XIII., which shows the absolute quantities and the relative proportions sent by the chief contributory countries in each of the four years 1897 to 1900, the order of precedence of the several countries being in accord with the figures for 1900. Denmark, as a result of the efforts made by that little kingdom to supply a sound product of uniform quality, possesses over 40% of the trade, and in the year 1900 received from the United Kingdom upwards of £8,000,000 for butter and over £3,000,000 for bacon, the raising of pigs for the consumption of separated milk being an important adjunct of the dairying industry in Denmark, where butter factories are extensively maintained on the co-operative principle. It is worthy of note that some at least of the butter received in the United Kingdom from Russia is made in Siberia, whence it is sent at the outset on a long land journey in refrigerated railway cars for shipment at a Baltic port, usually Riga. The countries not specially enumerated in Table XIII. from which butter is sent to the United Kingdom are Argentina, Belgium, Norway and Spain—these are included in “other countries.”

The sources from which the United Kingdom imports butter are clearly shown in Table XIII., which displays the total amounts and relative shares sent by the main contributing countries from 1897 to 1900, with the ranking of countries based on the figures for 1900. Denmark, due to its efforts to provide a high-quality, consistent product, holds over 40% of the market. In 1900, the United Kingdom imported over £8,000,000 worth of butter and more than £3,000,000 worth of bacon from Denmark, where raising pigs for the consumption of separated milk is an important part of the dairy industry, and butter factories operate extensively on a cooperative basis. It's interesting to note that some of the butter imported into the United Kingdom from Russia is produced in Siberia and is initially transported over a long distance in refrigerated rail cars to a Baltic port, usually Riga. The countries not specifically listed in Table XIII. that also supply butter to the United Kingdom include Argentina, Belgium, Norway, and Spain—these are grouped under “other countries.”

In Table XIV., relating to the estimated home production of cheese and the imports of that article, the ten years’ average indicates a home-made supply of 555.3%, imports of colonial cheese 24.2%, and imports of foreign cheese 20.5%. Comparing, however, the first with the last year of the period 1891-1900, it appears that in 1891 the proportions were 58.6% home-made, 17.2% colonial and 24.2% foreign, whereas in 1900 the percentages were 50.3, 28.9 and 20.8 respectively. Hence the colonial contribution (chiefly 759 Canadian) has gained ground at the expense both of the home-made and of the foreign. Again, comparing 1891 with 1900, the import of cheese into the United Kingdom increased to the extent of only 24,500 tons, so that it shows no expansion comparable with that of butter, which increased by about 70,000 tons. Simultaneously the estimated home production diminished by 17,000 tons.

In Table XIV, which shows the estimated domestic production of cheese and imports of that product, the ten-year average indicates a homemade supply of 555.3%, colonial cheese imports of 24.2%, and foreign cheese imports of 20.5%. However, when comparing the first and last year of the period from 1891 to 1900, it appears that in 1891 the proportions were 58.6% homemade, 17.2% colonial, and 24.2% foreign, while in 1900 the percentages were 50.3%, 28.9%, and 20.8% respectively. This shows that the colonial contribution (mainly from 759 Canada) has increased at the expense of both home production and foreign cheese. Additionally, comparing 1891 to 1900, cheese imports into the United Kingdom rose by only 24,500 tons, which is not significant compared to butter imports, which went up by about 70,000 tons. At the same time, the estimated domestic production fell by 17,000 tons.

Table XIV.Estimated Home Production and Imports of Cheese into the United Kingdom for the Ten Years ended 30th June 1900.

Table 14.Estimated Home Production and Imports of Cheese into the United Kingdom for the Ten Years ended 30 June 1900.

Year ended
30th June.
Home
Production,
estimated.
Imported
Colonial.
Imported
Foreign.
Total.
  Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons.
1891 147,078 43,228 60,816 251,122
1892 148,624 45,781 59,452 253,857
1893 140,394 55,549 56,767 252,710
1894 131,843 57,322 52,498 241,663
1895 150,611 61,622 52,570 264,803
1896 137,148 62,478 44,569 244,195
1897 130,000 67,028 46,317 243,345
1898 148,260 77,620 49,114 274,994
1899 150,000 73,752 46,985 270,737
1900 130,000 74,702 53,903 258,605
10 Years
Average
141,396 61,908 52,299 255,603

In imported colonial cheese Canada virtually has the field to itself, for the only other colonial cheese which finds its way into the United Kingdom is from New Zealand, but the amount of this kind is comparatively insignificant, having been in 1900 only 4000 tons out of a total import of 128,600 tons. Australia, in several seasons since 1891, sent small quantities, but they are not worth quoting.

In imported colonial cheese, Canada pretty much has the market to itself, as the only other colonial cheese that makes it to the United Kingdom is from New Zealand. However, this amount is relatively small, contributing just 4,000 tons in 1900 out of a total import of 128,600 tons. Australia has sent small quantities in several seasons since 1891, but those amounts aren't significant enough to mention.

From foreign countries the decline in the export of cheese is mainly in the case of the United States, which shipped to British ports 10,000 tons less in 1900 than in 1891. France also is losing its cheese trade in British markets, and is being supplanted by Belgium. In 1891 France supplied over 3000 tons, in 1900 the import was below 2000 tons. Belgium in 1891 supplied less than 1000 tons, but in 1900 contributed 2600 tons. The import trade in Dutch cheese remains almost stationary. In 1891 it amounted to 15,300 tons, in 1899 it was 15,600 tons, whilst in 1900, owing to exceptionally high prices, which stimulated the manufacture, it reached 17,000 tons.

From foreign countries, the drop in cheese exports is primarily seen in the United States, which sent 10,000 tons less to British ports in 1900 compared to 1891. France is also losing its cheese market in Britain, being replaced by Belgium. In 1891, France supplied over 3,000 tons, but by 1900, that number had fallen to below 2,000 tons. Belgium, which supplied less than 1,000 tons in 1891, contributed 2,600 tons in 1900. The import trade in Dutch cheese has remained fairly stable. It was 15,300 tons in 1891, increased slightly to 15,600 tons in 1899, and, due to unusually high prices that boosted production, reached 17,000 tons in 1900.

Table XV.Annual Imports of Cheese into the United Kingdom, 1897-1900.

Table 15.Yearly Cheese Imports into the United Kingdom, 1897-1900.

From 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900.
  Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. Cwt.
Canada 1,526,664 1,432,181 1,337,198 1,511,872
United States 631,616 485,995 590,737 680,583
Holland 297,604 292,925 328,541 327,817
Australasia 68,615 44,608 32,294 86,513
France 36,358 33,086 34,307 35,110
Other countries 42,321 50,657 60,992 69,910
Total 2,603,178 2,339,452 2,384,069 2,711,805
  % % % %
Canada 58.6 61.2 56.1 55.8
United States 24.3 20.8 24.8 25.1
Holland 11.4 12.5 13.8 12.0
Australasia 2.7 1.9 1.3 3.2
France 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
Other countries 1.6 2.2 2.6 2.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Over 80% of the cheese imported into the United Kingdom is derived from North America, but the bulk of the trade belongs to Canada, which supplies nearly 60% of the entire import. The value of the cheese exported from Canada to the United Kingdom in the calendar year 1900 was close upon £3,800,000. As is shown in Table XV. below, Holland, Australasia and France participate in this trade, whilst amongst the “other countries” are Germany, Italy and Russia. The cheese sent from North America and Australasia is mostly of the substantial Cheddar type, whereas soft or “fancy” cheese is the dominant feature of the French shipments. Thus, in the calendar year 1900 the average price of the cheese imported into the United Kingdom from France was 61s. per cwt., whilst the average value of the cheese from all other sources was 50s. per cwt., there being a difference of 11s. in favour of the “soft” cheese of France.

Over 80% of the cheese imported into the United Kingdom comes from North America, with Canada accounting for nearly 60% of the total imports. In 1900, the value of cheese exported from Canada to the United Kingdom was close to £3,800,000. As shown in Table XV. below, Holland, Australasia, and France also participate in this trade, while “other countries” include Germany, Italy, and Russia. The cheese shipped from North America and Australasia is mostly the hearty Cheddar type, while soft or “fancy” cheese is the main feature of the French shipments. In 1900, the average price of cheese imported from France to the United Kingdom was 61s. per cwt., whereas the average value of cheese from all other sources was 50s. per cwt., showing a difference of 11s. in favor of the “soft” cheese from France.

The imports of butter and margarine into the United Kingdom were not separately distinguished before the year 1886. Previous to that date they amounted, at five-year intervals, to the following aggregate quantities:—

The imports of butter and margarine into the United Kingdom weren't separately tracked before 1886. Before that date, their amounts, measured at five-year intervals, were as follows:—

  1870. 1875. 1880. 1885.
Cwt. 1,159,210 1,467,870 2,326,305 2,401,373

For the same years the imports of cheese registered the subjoined totals:—

For those same years, cheese imports recorded the following totals:—

  1870. 1875. 1880. 1885.
Cwt. 1,041,281 1,627,748 1,775,997 1,833,832

The imports of butter and margarine, both separately and together, and also the imports of cheese in each year from 1886 to 1900 inclusive, are set out in Table XVI., the most significant feature of which is the rapid expansion it shows in the imports of butter. In the space of nine years, between 1887 and 1896, the quantity was doubled. On the other hand, the general tendency of the imports of margarine, which have been much more uniform than those of butter, has been in the direction of decline since 1892. It is necessary, however, to point out that there has been an increase in the number of margarine factories in the United Kingdom, and in the quantity of margarine manufactured in them, during the last few years. Taking the imports of butter and margarine together, the aggregate in 1889 and also in 1900 was practically three times as large as a quarter of a century earlier, in 1875. The imports of cheese have increased at a less rapid rate than those of butter, and the quantity imported in 1900, which was a maximum, fell considerably short of twice the quantity in 1875. In 1886, 1887, 1888, 1890 and 1892 the imports of cheese exceeded those of butter, but since the last-named year those of butter have always been the larger, and 1899 were fully a million cwt. more than the cheese imports. The cheapness of imported fresh meat has probably had the effect of checking the growth of the demand for cheese amongst the industrial classes.

The imports of butter and margarine, both separately and together, as well as the imports of cheese each year from 1886 to 1900, are detailed in Table XVI. The most notable aspect is the rapid increase in butter imports. In just nine years, from 1887 to 1896, the amount doubled. On the other hand, the overall trend for margarine imports, which have been much steadier than those of butter, has been decreasing since 1892. However, it's important to note that the number of margarine factories in the UK and the amount of margarine produced in them have increased in recent years. When combining the imports of butter and margarine, the total in both 1889 and 1900 was almost three times as large as it was a quarter of a century earlier, in 1875. The imports of cheese have grown at a slower rate compared to butter, and the quantity imported in 1900 was significantly less than double what it was in 1875. In 1886, 1887, 1888, 1890, and 1892, cheese imports surpassed those of butter, but since then, butter has consistently been the larger import, with 1899 seeing butter imports exceed cheese imports by over a million cwt. The affordability of imported fresh meat has likely held back the demand for cheese among the working class.

Table XVI.Imports of Butter, Margarine and Cheese into the United Kingdom, 1886-1900.

Table 16.Imports of Butter, Margarine, and Cheese into the United Kingdom, 1886-1900.

Year. Butter. Margarine. Total Butter
and
Margarine.
Cheese.
  Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. Cwt.
1886 1,543,566 887,974 2,431,540 1,734,890
1887 1,513,134 1,276,140 2,789,274 1,836,789
1888 1,671,433 1,139,743 2,811,176 1,917,616
1899 1,927,842 1,241,690 3,169,532 1,907,999
1890 2,027,717 1,079,856 3,107,573 2,144,074
1891 2,135,607 1,235,430 3,371,037 2,041,325
1892 2,183,009 1,305,350 3,488,359 2,232,817
1893 2,327,474 1,299,970 3,627,444 2,077,462
1894 2,574,835 1,109,325 3,684,160 2,266,145
1895 2,825,662 940,168 3,765,830 2,133,819
1896 3,037,718 925,934 3,963,652 2,244,525
1897 3,217,802 936,543 4,154,345 2,603,178
1898 3,209,153 900,615 4,343,026 2,384,069
1999 3,389,851 953,175 4,343,026 2,384,069
1900 3,378,516 920,416 4,298,932 2,711,805

The imports of condensed milk into the United Kingdom were not separately distinguished before 1888. In that year they amounted to 352,332 cwt. The quantities imported in subsequent years were the following:—

The imports of condensed milk into the United Kingdom were not categorized separately until 1888. In that year, they totaled 352,332 cwt. The amounts imported in the following years were as follows:—

Year. Cwt. Year. Cwt. Year. Cwt.
1889 389,892 1893 501,005 1897 756,243
1890 407,426 1894 529,465 1898 817,274
1891 444,666 1895 545,394 1899 824,599
1892 481,374 1896 611,335 1900 986,741

The quantity thus increased continuously in each year after 1889, with the result that in 1900 the imports had grown to nearly three times the amount of those in 1889. Simultaneously, over the period 1889-1900 the annual value of the imports steadily advanced from £704,849 to £1,405,033. Thus, while the imports of condensed milk trebled in quantity, they doubled in value. A fair proportion is, however, exported, as is shown in the following statement of exports of imported condensed milk for the four years 1897 to 1900:—

The quantity kept increasing every year after 1889, so that by 1900, imports had almost tripled compared to 1889. Likewise, from 1889 to 1900, the annual value of imports rose steadily from £704,849 to £1,405,033. So, while the imports of condensed milk tripled in quantity, they also doubled in value. However, a good amount is exported, as shown in the following export figures of imported condensed milk for the four years from 1897 to 1900:—

  1897. 1898. 1899. 1900.
Quantity,   cwt. 143,932 133,596 118,394 164,602
Value £274,578 £256,525 £228,446 £309,460

There is also an export trade in condensed milk made in the United Kingdom. Thus, in 1892 the exports of home-made condensed milk amounted to 61,442 cwt., valued at £133,556. By 1896 the quantity had almost doubled, and reached 111,959 cwt., of the value of £224,831. In subsequent years the exports were:—

There is also an export trade in condensed milk produced in the United Kingdom. In 1892, the exports of domestically made condensed milk totaled 61,442 cwt., worth £133,556. By 1896, the amount had nearly doubled, reaching 111,959 cwt., with a value of £224,831. In the following years, the exports were:—

  1897. 1898. 1899. 1900.
Quantity,   cwt. 154,901 178,055 185,749 209,447
Value £302,748 £343,070 £353,819 £390,559

760

760

Milk and cream (fresh or preserved other than condensed) received no separate classification in the imports until 1894, in which year the quantity imported was 161,633 gallons, followed by 126,995 gallons in 1895, and 22,776 gallons in 1896. The quantities have since been returned by weight—10,006 cwt. in 1897, 10,691 cwt. in 1898, 7859 cwt. in 1899, and 15,638 cwt. in 1900. The values of these imports in the successive years 1894 to 1900 were £21,371, £19,991, £5489, £9848, £11,293, £16,068 and £26,837.

Milk and cream (whether fresh or preserved except for condensed) didn’t have a separate category in imports until 1894. That year, 161,633 gallons were imported, followed by 126,995 gallons in 1895, and 22,776 gallons in 1896. Since then, the amounts have been recorded by weight—10,006 cwt. in 1897, 10,691 cwt. in 1898, 7,859 cwt. in 1899, and 15,638 cwt. in 1900. The values of these imports from 1894 to 1900 were £21,371, £19,991, £5,489, £9,848, £11,293, £16,068, and £26,837.

The total values of the imports of dairy produce of all kinds—butter, margarine, cheese, &c.—into the United Kingdom were, at five-year intervals between 1875 and 1890, the following:—

The total values of dairy product imports of all kinds—butter, margarine, cheese, etc.—into the United Kingdom were, at five-year intervals between 1875 and 1890, as follows:—

  1875. 1880. 1885. 1890.
Value £13,211,592 £17,232,548 £15,632,852 £19,505,798

Table XVII.Values of Dairy Products imported into the United Kingdom from 1891 to 1900, in Thousands of Pounds Sterling.

Table 17.Values of Dairy Products imported into the United Kingdom from 1891 to 1900, in Thousands of Pounds Sterling.

Year. Butter. Margarine. Cheese. Condensed
Milk.
Total.
  £1000. £1000. £1000. £1000. £1000.
1891 11,591 3558 4813 900 20,863
1892 11,965 3713 5417 930 22,025
1893 12,754 3655 5161 1010 22,580
1894 13,457 3045 5475 1079 23,077
1895 14,245 2557 4675 1084 22,581
1896 15,344 2498 4900 1170 23,920
1897 15,917 2485 5886 1398 25,715
1898 15,962 2384 4970 1436 24,779
1899 17,214 2549 5503 1455 26,747
1900 17,450 2465 6838 1743 28,544

The values in each year of the closing decade of the 19th century are set forth in Table XVII., where the totals in the last column include small sums for margarine-cheese and, since 1893, for fresh milk and cream. The aggregate value more than doubled during the last quarter of the century. The earliest year for which the value of imported butter is separately available is 1886, when it amounted to £8,141,438. Thirteen years later this sum had more than doubled, and it is an impressive fact that in the closing year of the century the United Kingdom should have expended on imported butter alone a sum closely approximating to 17½ million pounds sterling, equivalent to about three-fourths of the total amount disbursed on imported wheat grain.16

The values for each year in the last decade of the 19th century are shown in Table XVII, where the totals in the last column include small amounts for margarine-cheese and, since 1893, for fresh milk and cream. The overall value more than doubled in the last quarter of the century. The first year for which the value of imported butter is available separately is 1886, when it was £8,141,438. Thirteen years later, this amount had more than doubled, and it’s noteworthy that in the final year of the century, the United Kingdom spent nearly 17½ million pounds sterling on imported butter alone, which is about three-fourths of the total spent on imported wheat grain.16

The imports of margarine—that is, of margarine specifically declared to be such—into the United Kingdom are derived almost entirely from Holland. Out of a total of 920,416 cwt. imported in 1900 Holland supplied 862,154 cwt., and out of £2,464,839 expended on imported margarine in the same year Holland received £2,295,174. To the imports in the year named Holland contributed 93.7%; France, 2.9; Norway, 0.9; all other countries, 2.5; so that Holland possesses almost a monopoly of this trade. The quantities of imported butter, margarine and cheese that are again exported from the United Kingdom are trivial when compared with the imports, as will be seen from the following quantities and values in the three years 1898 to 1900:—

The imports of margarine—which means margarine that's specifically labeled as such—into the United Kingdom come almost entirely from Holland. In 1900, out of a total of 920,416 cwt. imported, Holland supplied 862,154 cwt., and out of £2,464,839 spent on imported margarine that year, Holland received £2,295,174. In that year, Holland accounted for 93.7% of the imports; France contributed 2.9%, Norway 0.9%, and all other countries together contributed 2.5%. This means Holland has nearly a monopoly on this trade. The amounts of imported butter, margarine, and cheese that are re-exported from the United Kingdom are very small compared to the imports, as shown by the following quantities and values from the years 1898 to 1900:—

  1898. 1899. 1900. 1898. 1899. 1900.
  Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. £ £ £
Butter 63,491 50,453 51,583 319,806 257,999 258,931
Margarine 10,023 13,139 11,326 24,721 33,319 27,882
Cheese 56,694 56,390 55,982 159,210 163,991 168,369

There is also a very small export trade in butter and cheese made in the United Kingdom, but its insignificant character is evident from the subjoined details as to quantities and values for the years named:—

There is also a very small export trade in butter and cheese produced in the United Kingdom, but its minor importance is clear from the details below regarding quantities and values for the specified years:—

  1898. 1899. 1900. 1898. 1899. 1900.
  Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. £ £ £
Butter 11,359 9,936 10,127 59,731 53,195 53,701
Cheese 10,126 9,758 9,356 36,803 35,890 36,691

American Dairying

American Dairy Farming

The development of the dairying industry in the vast region of the United States of America has been described in the official Year-Book by Major Henry E. Alvord, chief of the dairy division of the bureau of animal industry in the department of agriculture at Washington. The beginning of the 20th century found the industry upon an altogether higher level than seemed possible a few decades earlier. The milch cow herself, upon which the whole business rests, has become almost as much a machine as a natural product, and a very different creature from the average animal of bygone days. The few homely and inconvenient implements for use in the laborious duties of the dairy have been replaced by perfected appliances, skilfully devised to accomplish their object and to lighten labour. Long rows of shining metal pans no longer adorn rural dooryards. The factory system of co-operative or concentrated manufacture has so far taken the place of home dairying that in entire states the cheese vat or press is as rare as the handloom, and in many counties it is as difficult to find a farm churn as a spinning-wheel. An illustration of the nature of the changes is afforded in the butter-making district of northern Vermont, at St Albans, the business centre of Franklin county. In 1880 the first creamery was built in this county; ten years later there were 15. Now a creamery company at St Albans has upwards of 50 skimming or separating stations distributed through Franklin and adjoining counties. To these is carried the milk from more than 30,000 cows. Farmers who possess separators at home may deliver cream which, after being inspected and tested, is accepted and credited at its actual butter value, just as other raw material is sold to mills and factories. The separated cream is conveyed by rail and waggon to the central factory, where in one room from 10 to 12 tons of butter are made every working day—a single churning place for a whole county! The butter is all of standard quality, “extra creamery,” and is sold on its reputation upon orders received in advance of its manufacture. The price is relatively higher than the average for the product of the same farms fifty years earlier. This is mainly due to better average quality and greater uniformity—two important advantages of the creamery system.

The growth of the dairy industry in the vast region of the United States has been documented in the official Year-Book by Major Henry E. Alvord, head of the dairy division of the Bureau of Animal Industry in the Department of Agriculture in Washington. At the start of the 20th century, the industry was at a much higher level than what seemed possible just a few decades before. The dairy cow, which is the foundation of the whole business, has become almost as much a machine as a natural animal, and is very different from the average cows of the past. The few basic and cumbersome tools used in the hard work of dairy farming have been replaced by advanced devices, designed to achieve their purpose and reduce labor. Long lines of shiny metal pans no longer decorate rural yards. The factory system of cooperative or centralized manufacturing has increasingly replaced home dairying, to the point where in entire states, cheese vats or presses are as rare as handlooms, and in many counties, it's just as hard to find a farm churn as a spinning wheel. An example of these changes can be seen in the butter-producing region of northern Vermont, specifically St. Albans, the business hub of Franklin County. In 1880, the first creamery was established in this county; a decade later, there were 15. Now, a creamery company in St. Albans has over 50 skimming or separating stations spread throughout Franklin and nearby counties. These stations receive milk from more than 30,000 cows. Farmers who have separators at home can deliver cream that is inspected and tested, then credited at its actual butter value, just like other raw materials sold to mills and factories. The separated cream is transported by rail and wagon to the central factory, where 10 to 12 tons of butter are produced every working day—one churning place for the entire county! All of the butter is of standard quality, labeled “extra creamery,” and is sold based on its reputation, with orders taken in advance of production. The price is relatively higher than the average for the same farms fifty years ago. This is mainly due to improved overall quality and greater consistency—two significant advantages of the creamery system.

In one important detail dairy labour is the same as a century ago. Cows still have to be milked by hand. Although many attempts have been made, and patent after patent has been issued, no mechanical contrivance has yet proved a practical success as a substitute for the human hand in milking. Consequently, twice (or thrice) daily every day in the year, the dairy cows must be milked by manual labour. This is one of the main items of labour in dairying, and is a delicate and important duty. Assuming 10 cows per hour to a milker, which implies quick work, it requires the continuous service of an army of 300,000 men, working 10 or 12 hours a day throughout the year, to milk the cows kept in the United States.

In one key aspect, dairy work hasn’t changed much in a hundred years. Cows still need to be milked by hand. Despite numerous attempts and countless patents, no mechanical device has successfully replaced the human hand in milking. As a result, every day of the year, dairy cows need to be milked manually two or three times a day. This is one of the main tasks in dairying and is a delicate and crucial responsibility. Assuming each milker can handle 10 cows per hour, which means working quickly, it takes a dedicated workforce of 300,000 people working 10 to 12 hours a day all year round to milk the cows raised in the United States.

The business of producing milk for urban consumption, with the accompanying agencies for transportation and distribution, has grown to immense proportions. In many places the milk trade is regulated and supervised by excellent municipal ordinances, which have done much to prevent adulteration and to improve the average quality of the supply. Quite as much is, however, being done by private enterprise through large milk companies, well organized and equipped, and establishments which make a speciality of serving milk and cream of fixed quality and exceptional purity. Such efforts to furnish “certified” and “guaranteed” milk, together with general competition for the best class of trade, are doing more to raise the standard of quality and improve the service than all the legal measures. The buildings and equipment of some of these modern dairies are beyond precedent. This branch of dairying is advancing fast, upon the safe basis of care, cleanliness and better sanitary conditions.

The business of producing milk for city consumption, along with the necessary transportation and distribution agencies, has expanded significantly. In many areas, the milk industry is regulated and monitored by effective municipal laws, which have greatly helped to prevent contamination and improve the overall quality of the supply. However, private companies are also making significant contributions through large, well-organized milk corporations and facilities that specialize in providing milk and cream of consistent quality and outstanding purity. Efforts to offer “certified” and “guaranteed” milk, along with general competition for high-quality products, are doing more to elevate quality standards and enhance service than all the legal measures combined. The buildings and equipment of some of these modern dairies are unprecedented. This sector of dairying is rapidly advancing, based on careful practices, cleanliness, and improved sanitary conditions.

Cheese-making has been transferred bodily from the domain of domestic arts to that of manufactures. In the middle of the 19th century about 100,000,000 ℔ of cheese was made yearly in the United States, and all of it in farm dairies. At the beginning of the 20th century the annual production was about 300,000,000 ℔, and 96 or 97% of this was made in factories. Of these there are nearly 3000, but they vary greatly in capacity, and some are very small. New York and Wisconsin possess a thousand each, but the former state makes nearly twice as much cheese as the latter, whilst the two together produce three-fourths of the entire output of the country. A change is taking place in the direction of bringing a number of factories previously independent into a 761 “combination” or under the same management. This tends to improve the quality and secure greater uniformity in the product, and often reduces cost of manufacture. More than nine-tenths of all the cheese made is of the familiar standard type, copied after the English Cheddar, but new kinds and imitations of foreign varieties are increasing. The annual export of cheese from the United States ranges between 30,000,000 and 50,000,000 ℔. The consumption per capita does not exceed 3½ ℔ per annum, which is much less than in most European countries.

Cheese-making has shifted from being a home craft to a large-scale industry. In the mid-19th century, around 100 million pounds of cheese were produced each year in the United States, all from farm dairies. By the early 20th century, the annual production rose to about 300 million pounds, with 96 or 97% of it coming from factories. There are nearly 3,000 of these factories, varying greatly in size, some very small. New York and Wisconsin each have around a thousand factories, but New York produces almost twice as much cheese as Wisconsin, and together they account for three-fourths of the country's total output. A trend is emerging where several previously independent factories are joining together under a single management or “combination.” This is improving the quality and ensuring greater consistency in the product, often lowering manufacturing costs. More than 90% of all cheese produced is of the standard type, modeled after English Cheddar, but new varieties and imitations of foreign cheeses are on the rise. The annual export of cheese from the United States ranges from 30 million to 50 million pounds. The consumption per person does not exceed 3.5 pounds per year, which is much lower than in most European countries.

Butter differs from cheese in that it is still made much more largely on farms in the United States than in creameries. Creamery butter controls all the large markets, but this represents little more than one-third of the entire business. Estimating the annual butter product of the entire country at 1,400,000,000 ℔ not much over 500,000,000 ℔ of this is made at the 7500 or 8000 creameries in operation. Iowa is the greatest butter-producing state, and the one in which the greater proportion is made on the factory plan. The total output of butter in this state is one-tenth of all made in the Union. The average quality of butter has materially improved since the introduction of the creamery system and the use of modern appliances. Nevertheless, a vast quantity of poor butter is made—enough to afford a large and profitable business in collecting it at country stores at grease prices or a little more, and then rendering or renovating it by patent processes. This renovated butter has been fraudulently sold to a considerable extent as the true creamery article, of which it is a fair imitation while fresh, and several states have made laws for the identification of the product and to prevent buyers from being imposed upon. No butter is imported, and the quantity exported is insignificant, although there is beginning to be a foreign demand for American butter. The home consumption is estimated at the yearly rate of 20 ℔ per person, which, if correct, would indicate Americans to be the greatest butter-eating people in the world. The people of the United States also consume millions of pounds every year of butter substitutes and imitations, such as oleomargarine and butterine. Most of this is believed to be butter by those who use it, and the state dairy commissioners are busily employed in carrying out the laws intended to protect purchasers from these butter frauds.

Butter is different from cheese because it's still produced mainly on farms in the United States rather than in creameries. While creamery butter dominates the large markets, it accounts for just over one-third of the total business. The annual butter production for the whole country is about 1,400,000,000 pounds, but only a little over 500,000,000 pounds comes from the 7,500 or 8,000 creameries operating. Iowa is the top butter-producing state and where a larger percentage is made using the factory system. This state produces one-tenth of all the butter made in the country. The overall quality of butter has significantly improved since the introduction of the creamery system and modern equipment. However, a large amount of low-quality butter is still made—enough to create a profitable business in collecting it at country stores for low prices and then processing or reviving it through patented methods. This renovated butter has been sold deceptively as genuine creamery butter, where it resembles the real thing while fresh. Several states have enacted laws to identify the product and protect consumers from being cheated. No butter is imported, and only a small amount is exported, although there’s a growing foreign demand for American butter. The average consumption at home is estimated at 20 pounds per person per year, which, if accurate, suggests that Americans are the biggest butter consumers in the world. People in the United States also use millions of pounds of butter substitutes and imitations, like oleomargarine and butterine. Most users believe this is actual butter, and state dairy commissioners are actively working to enforce laws designed to protect buyers from these butter scams.

The by-products of dairying have, within recent years, been put to economical uses, in an increasing degree. For every pound of butter made there are 15 to 20 ℔ of skim-milk and about 3 ℔ of butter-milk, and for every pound of cheese nearly 9 ℔ of whey. Up to 1889 or 1890 enormous quantities of skim-milk and butter-milk from the creameries and of whey from the cheese factories were entirely wasted. At farm dairies these by-products are generally used to advantage in feeding animals, but at the factories—especially at the seasons of greatest milk supply—this most desirable method of utilization is to a great extent impracticable. In many places new branches have been instituted for the making of sugar-of-milk and other commercial products from whey, and for the utilization of skim-milk in various ways. The albumin of the latter is extracted for use with food products and in the arts. The casein is desiccated and prepared as a substitute for eggs in baking, as the basis of an enamel paint, and as a substitute for glue in paper-sizing. It has also been proposed to solidify it to make buttons, combs, brush-backs, electrical insulators and similar articles.

The by-products of dairy farming have, in recent years, been used more efficiently. For every pound of butter produced, there are 15 to 20 pounds of skim milk and about 3 pounds of buttermilk, and for every pound of cheese, nearly 9 pounds of whey. Until about 1889 or 1890, large amounts of skim milk and buttermilk from creameries and whey from cheese factories were completely wasted. On dairy farms, these by-products are typically used effectively to feed animals, but in factories—especially during peak milk production seasons—this useful practice is often not feasible. In many places, new processes have been developed to create lactose and other commercial products from whey, as well as to utilize skim milk in various ways. The protein from skim milk is extracted for use in food products and the arts. The casein is dried and used as an egg substitute in baking, as the base for enamel paint, and as an alternative to glue in paper sizing. There have also been proposals to solidify it to make buttons, combs, brush backs, electrical insulators, and similar items.

No census of cows in the United States was taken until the year 1840, but they have been enumerated in each subsequent decennial census. From 23 to 27 cows to every 100 of the population were required to keep the country supplied with milk, butter and cheese, and provide for the export of dairy products. The export trade, though it has fluctuated considerably, has never exceeded the produce of 500,000 cows. At the close of the 19th century it was estimated that there was one milch cow in the United States for every four persons, making the number of cows about 17,500,000. They are, however, very unevenly distributed, being largely concentrated in the great dairy states, Iowa leading with 1,500,000 cows, and being followed closely by New York. In the middle and eastern states the milk product goes very largely to the supply of the numerous large towns and cities. In the central, west and north-west butter is the leading dairy product.

No census of cows in the United States was conducted until 1840, but they have been counted in each subsequent decennial census. Between 23 and 27 cows for every 100 people were needed to keep the country supplied with milk, butter, and cheese, as well as to support the export of dairy products. The export trade, although it has varied a lot, has never gone over the output of 500,000 cows. By the end of the 19th century, it was estimated that there was one milking cow in the United States for every four people, making the total number of cows about 17,500,000. However, they are very unevenly distributed, with a large concentration in key dairy states, Iowa leading with 1,500,000 cows, followed closely by New York. In the middle and eastern states, most of the milk produced goes to supply the many large towns and cities. In the central, western, and northwestern regions, butter is the main dairy product.

Table XVIII.Estimated Number of Cows and Quantity and Value of Dairy Products in the United States in 1899.

Table 18.Estimated Number of Cows and Quantity and Value of Dairy Products in the United States in 1899.

Cows. Product. Rate of
Product
per Cow.
Total Product. Rate of
Value.
Total Value.
        Cents. Dollars.
11,000,000 Butter 130 ℔ 1,430,000,000 ℔ 18 257,400,000
1,000,000 Cheese 300 ℔  300,000,000 ℔ 9 27,000,000
5,500,000 Milk 380 gals. 2,090,000,000 gals. 8 167,200,000

Table XVIII. shows approximately the quantity and value of the dairy products of the United States for a typical year, the grand total representing a value of $451,600,000. Adding to this the skim-milk, butter-milk and whey, at their proper feeding value, and the calves dropped yearly, the annual aggregate value of the produce of the dairy cows exceeds $500,000,000, or is more than one hundred million pounds sterling. Accepting these estimates as conservative, they show that the commercial importance of the dairy industry of the United States is such as to justify all reasonable provisions for guarding its interests.

Table XVIII shows the approximate quantity and value of dairy products in the United States for a typical year, with a total value of $451,600,000. When you add in the proper feeding values of skim milk, buttermilk, and whey, along with the yearly calves produced, the total annual value of dairy cow products surpasses $500,000,000, which is over one hundred million pounds sterling. Even considering these estimates as conservative, they highlight the commercial significance of the dairy industry in the United States, justifying reasonable measures to protect its interests.

(W. Fr.)

1 A gallon of milk weighs 10.3 ℔, so that very little error is involved in converting pounds to gallons by dividing the number of pounds by 10.

1 A gallon of milk weighs 10.3 lbs, so there's very little error in converting pounds to gallons by dividing the number of pounds by 10.

2 A portable milk-weighing appliance is made in which the weight of the pail is included, and an indicator shows on a dial the exact weight in pounds and ounces, and likewise the volume in gallons and pints, of the milk in the pail. When the pail is empty the indicator of course points to zero.

2 A portable milk-weighing device is created that includes the weight of the bucket, with a dial displaying the precise weight in pounds and ounces, as well as the volume in gallons and pints, of the milk in the bucket. When the bucket is empty, the indicator naturally points to zero.

3 Landw. Futterungslehre, 5te Aufl., 1888, p. 249.

3 Animal Feed Science, 5th ed., 1888, p. 249.

4 The Analyst, April 1885, vol. x. p. 67.

4 The Analyst, April 1885, vol. x. p. 67.

5 The evidence on this point taken by the Committee on Milk and Cream Regulations in 1900 is somewhat conflicting. The report states that an impression commonly prevails that the quality of milk is more or less determined by the nature and composition of the food which the cow receives. One witness said that farmers who produce milk for sale feed differently from what they do if they are producing for butter. Another stated that most of the statistics which go to show that food has no effect on milk fail, because the experiments are not carried far enough to counterbalance that peculiarity of the animal first to utilize the food for itself before utilizing it for the milk. A witness who kept a herd of 100 milking cows expressed the opinion that improvement in the quality of milk can be effected by feeding, though not to any large extent. On the other hand, it was maintained that the fat percentage in the milk of a cow cannot be raised by any manner or method of feeding. It is possible that in the case of cows very poorly fed the addition of rich food would alter the composition of their milk, but if the cows are well-fed to begin with, this would not be so. The proprietor of a herd of 500 milking cows did not think that feeding affected the quality of milk from ordinarily well-kept animals. An experimenter found that the result of resorting to rather poor feeding was that the first effect was produced upon the weight of the cow and not upon the milk; the animal began to get thin, losing its weight, though there was not very much effect upon the quality of the milk.

5 The evidence on this matter collected by the Committee on Milk and Cream Regulations in 1900 is somewhat mixed. The report notes that there is a common belief that the quality of milk is largely determined by the type and composition of the cow's feed. One witness mentioned that farmers who sell milk feed their cows differently than when they're producing for butter. Another pointed out that many statistics suggesting food has no impact on milk quality fail because the experiments don't go far enough to offset the fact that animals first use food for their own needs before using it for milk production. A witness who managed a herd of 100 milking cows believed that feeding can improve milk quality, although not significantly. On the other hand, it was argued that the fat percentage in a cow's milk cannot be increased by any feeding method. It's possible that for cows that are very poorly fed, providing richer food could change their milk's composition, but if the cows are already well-fed, this wouldn't happen. The owner of a herd of 500 milking cows felt that feeding did not affect the quality of milk from normally well-cared-for animals. An experimenter found that when cows were fed poorly, the first effect was on the cow's weight, as it began to lose weight without significantly affecting the milk's quality.

6 Journ. Roy. Agric. Soc., 1898.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, 1898.

7 Trans. Highl. and Agric. Soc. Scot., 1899.

7 Trans. Highl. and Agric. Soc. Scot., 1899.

8 Report on Cheddar Cheese-Making, London, 1899.

8 Report on Cheddar Cheese-Making, London, 1899.

9 “The Practice of Stilton Cheese-Making,” Journ. Roy. Agric. Soc., 1899.

9 “Making Stilton Cheese,” Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, 1899.

10 Experiment Station Record, xii. 9 (Washington, 1901).

10 Experiment Station Record, xii. 9 (Washington, 1901).

11 Market butter is sometimes deliberately over-weighted with water, and a fraudulent profit is obtained by selling this extra moisture at the price of butter.

11 Market butter is sometimes deliberately loaded with extra water, and a dishonest profit is made by selling this additional moisture as if it were butter.

12 “Thermal Death-Point of Tubercle Bacilli, and Relation of same to Commercial Pasteurization of Milk,” by H. L. Russell and E. G. Hastings.

12 “Thermal Death-Point of Tubercle Bacilli, and Relation of same to Commercial Pasteurization of Milk,” by H. L. Russell and E. G. Hastings.

13 16th Rept. Wis. Agric. Expt. Station, 1899, p. 129.

13 16th Rept. Wis. Agric. Expt. Station, 1899, p. 129.

14 See also the article Adulteration.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Check out the article Adulteration.

15 A special committee appointed by the council of the Royal Statistical Society commenced in 1901 an inquiry into the home production of milk and meat in the United Kingdom.

15 A special committee chosen by the council of the Royal Statistical Society started an investigation in 1901 into the domestic production of milk and meat in the United Kingdom.

16 In 1901 the United Kingdom imported 3,702,810 cwt. of butter, valued at £19,297,005, both totals being the largest on record.

16 In 1901, the United Kingdom imported 3,702,810 hundredweight of butter, worth £19,297,005, which were both the highest figures ever recorded.


DAIS (Fr. dais, estrade, Ital. predella), originally a part of the floor at the end of a medieval hall, raised a step above the rest of the building. On this the lord of the mansion dined with his friends at the high table, apart from the retainers and servants. In medieval halls there was generally a deep recessed bay window at one or at each end of the dais, supposed to be for retirement, or greater privacy than the open hall could afford. In France the word is understood as a canopy or hanging over a seat; probably the name was given from the fact that the seats of great men were then surmounted by such a feature. In ordinary use, the term means any raised platform in a room, for dignified occupancy.

DAIS (From dais, estrade, Italian predella), originally a part of the floor at the end of a medieval hall, elevated above the rest of the space. Here, the lord of the manor would dine with his friends at the high table, separated from the servants and retainers. Medieval halls typically featured a deep recessed bay window at one or both ends of the dais, meant for seclusion or more privacy than the open hall could provide. In France, the term refers to a canopy or covering over a seat; it likely got its name because the seats of important individuals were often topped with such a feature. In common usage, the term refers to any raised platform in a room, used for dignified seating.


DAISY (A.S. daeges eage, day’s eye), the name applied to the plants constituting the genus Bellis, of the natural order Compositae. The genus contains ten species found in Europe and the Mediterranean region. The common daisy, B. perennis, is the only representative of the genus in the British Isles. It is a perennial, abundant everywhere in pastures and on banks in Europe, except in the most northerly regions, and in Asia Minor, and occurs as an introduced plant in North America. The stem of the daisy is short; the leaves, which are numerous and form a rosette, are slightly hairy, obovate-spathulate in shape, with rounded teeth on the margin in the upper part; and the root-stock is creeping, and of a brownish colour. The flowers are to be found from March to November, and occasionally in the winter months. The heads of flowers are solitary, the outer or ray-florets pink or white, the disk-florets bright yellow. The size and luxuriance of the plant are much affected by the nature of the soil in which it grows. The cultivated varieties, which are numerous, bear finely-coloured flowers, and make very effective borders for walks. What is known as the “hen-and-chicken” daisy has the main head surrounded by a brood of sometimes as many as ten or twelve small heads, formed in the axils of the scales of the involucre. The ray-florets curve inwards and “close” the flower-head in dull weather and towards evening.

DAISY (A.S. daeges eage, day’s eye), the name given to the plants in the genus Bellis, part of the natural order Compositae. This genus includes ten species found in Europe and the Mediterranean region. The common daisy, B. perennis, is the only species of this genus in the British Isles. It is a perennial plant that can be found throughout pastures and along banks in Europe, except in the northernmost areas, as well as in Asia Minor, and it has also been introduced in North America. The stem of the daisy is short; the leaves, which are numerous and form a rosette, are slightly hairy, obovate-spathulate in shape, with rounded teeth on the upper margin; and the root-stock creeps along the ground and has a brownish color. Flowers bloom from March to November, and sometimes even in winter. The flower heads are solitary, with outer or ray florets that are pink or white and disk florets that are bright yellow. The size and health of the plant greatly depend on the type of soil it grows in. There are many cultivated varieties that produce beautifully colored flowers and create striking borders for pathways. The "hen-and-chicken" daisy features a main flower head surrounded by a cluster of small heads, which can number as many as ten or twelve, formed in the axils of the involucral scales. The ray florets curve inward, closing the flower head in dull weather and in the evening.

Chaucer writes—

Chaucer states—

“The daisie, or els the eye of the daie,

“The daisie, or else the eye of the day,

The emprise, and the floure of flouris alle”;

The endeavor, and the flower of all flowers;

and again—

and again—

“To seen this floure agenst the sunne sprede

“To see this flower against the sun spread

Whan it riseth early by the morrow,

Whan it riseth early by the morrow,

That blissful sight softeneth all my sorrow”;

That blissful sight softens all my sorrow.

and the flower is often alluded to with admiration by the other poets of nature. To the farmer, however, the daisy is a weed, and a most wasteful one, as it exhausts the soil and is not eaten by any kind of stock.

and the flower is often admired by other nature poets. To the farmer, though, the daisy is just a weed, and a pretty wasteful one, as it drains the soil and isn't eaten by any livestock.

In French the daisy is termed la marguerite (μαργαρίτης, a pearl), and “herb margaret” is stated to be an old English appellation for it. In Scotland it is popularly called the gowan, and in Yorkshire it is the bairn wort, or flower beloved by children. The Christmas and Michaelmas daisies are species of Aster; the ox-eye daisy is Chrysanthemum Leucanthemum, a common weed in meadows and waste places. B. perennis flore-pleno, the 762 double daisy, consists of dwarf, showy, 3 to 4 in. plants, flowering freely in spring if grown in rich light soil, and frequently divided and transplanted. The white and pink forms, with the white and red quilled, and the variegated-leaved aucubaefolia, are some of the best.

In French, the daisy is called la marguerite (daisy, meaning a pearl), and “herb margaret” is an old English name for it. In Scotland, it's commonly called the gowan, and in Yorkshire, it's known as the bairn wort, or the flower loved by children. The Christmas and Michaelmas daisies belong to the species Aster; the ox-eye daisy is Chrysanthemum Leucanthemum, a common weed found in meadows and neglected areas. B. perennis flore-pleno, the double daisy, features compact, showy plants that grow 3 to 4 inches tall, blooming abundantly in spring if planted in rich, well-drained soil and often divided and transplanted. The white and pink varieties, along with the white and red quilled types, and the variegated-leaved aucubaefolia, are some of the best options.


DAKAR, a seaport of Senegal, and capital of French West Africa, in 14° 40′ N., 17° 24′ W. The town, which is strongly fortified, holds a commanding strategic position on the route between western Europe and Brazil and South Africa, being situated in the Gulf of Goree on the eastern side of the peninsula of Cape Verde, the most westerly point of Africa. It is the only port of Senegal affording safe anchorage for the largest ships. Pop. (1904), within the municipal limits, 18,447; including suburbs, 23,452.

DAKAR, is a seaport in Senegal and the capital of French West Africa, located at 14° 40′ N, 17° 24′ W. The town is heavily fortified and has a key strategic position on the route between Western Europe and Brazil, as well as South Africa, sitting in the Gulf of Gorée on the eastern side of the Cape Verde peninsula, the most western point of Africa. It is the only port in Senegal that provides safe anchorage for the largest ships. Population (1904), within the municipal limits, was 18,447; including suburbs, it was 23,452.

The town consists for the most part of broad and regular streets and possesses several fine public buildings, notably the palace of the governor-general. It is plentifully supplied with good water and is fairly healthy. It is the starting point of the railway to St Louis, and is within five days steam of Lisbon. The harbour, built in 1904-1908, is formed by two jetties, one of 6840 ft., the other of 1968 ft., the entrance being 720 ft. wide. There are three commercial docks, with over 7000 ft. of quayage, ships drawing 26 ft. being able to moor alongside. Cargo is transferred directly to the railway trucks. There is also a naval dock and arsenal with a torpedo-boat basin 755 ft. by 410 ft. and a dry dock 656 ft. long and 92 ft. broad. The Messageries Maritimes Company use the port as a coaling station and provisioning depot for their South American trade. Dakar is a regular port of call for other French lines and for the Elder Dempster boats sailing between Liverpool and the West Coast of Africa. It shares with Rufisque and St Louis the external trade of Senegal and the adjacent regions. For trade statistics see Senegal.

The town mainly has wide and straight streets and features several impressive public buildings, especially the governor-general’s palace. It has plenty of good drinking water and is relatively healthy. It serves as the starting point for the railway to St. Louis and is about five days by steam ship from Lisbon. The harbor, built between 1904 and 1908, is shaped by two jetties—one measuring 6,840 feet and the other 1,968 feet—with a 720-foot-wide entrance. There are three commercial docks with over 7,000 feet of quay space, allowing ships with a draft of 26 feet to dock alongside. Cargo is transferred directly to railway trucks. There is also a naval dock and arsenal that includes a torpedo boat basin measuring 755 feet by 410 feet and a dry dock that is 656 feet long and 92 feet wide. The Messageries Maritimes Company uses the port as a coaling station and supply depot for its South American operations. Dakar is a frequent stop for other French shipping lines and for Elder Dempster boats traveling between Liverpool and the West Coast of Africa. It shares the external trade of Senegal and its neighboring areas with Rufisque and St. Louis. For trade statistics see Senegal.

Dakar was originally a dependency of Goree and was founded in 1862, a year after the declaration of a French protectorate over the mainland. The port was opened for commerce in 1867, and in 1885 its importance was greatly increased by the completion of the railway (163 m. long) to St Louis. Dakar thus came into direct communication with the countries of Upper Senegal and the middle Niger. In 1887 the town was made a commune on the French model, all citizens irrespective of colour being granted the franchise. In 1903 the offices of the governor-general and of the court of appeal of French West Africa were transferred from St Louis to Dakar, which is also the seat of a bishop. In February 1905 a submarine cable was laid between Brest and Dakar, affording direct telegraphic communication between France and her West African colonies by an all French route.

Dakar was originally part of Goree and was founded in 1862, just a year after France declared a protectorate over the mainland. The port opened for trade in 1867, and in 1885, its significance greatly increased with the completion of the railway (163 miles long) to St. Louis. This connected Dakar directly with the regions of Upper Senegal and the middle Niger. In 1887, the town was established as a commune based on the French model, granting all citizens, regardless of color, the right to vote. In 1903, the offices of the governor-general and the court of appeal for French West Africa moved from St. Louis to Dakar, which is also home to a bishop. In February 1905, a submarine cable was laid between Brest and Dakar, providing direct telegraphic communication between France and its West African colonies through an entirely French route.


DALAGUETE, a town of the province of Cebú, island of Cebú, Philippine Islands, at the mouth of the Tapón river on the E. coast, 50 m. S.S.W. of Cebú, the capital. The town has a healthy climate, cool during November, December, January and February, and hot during the rest of the year. The inhabitants grow hemp, Indian corn, coffee, sibucao, cacao, cocoanuts (for copra) and sugar, weave rough fabrics and manufacture tuba (a kind of wine used as a stimulant), clay pots and jars, salt and soap. There is some fishing here. The language is Cebú-Visayan.

DALAGUETE, is a town in the province of Cebú on Cebú Island, Philippines, located at the mouth of the Tapón River on the east coast, 50 miles S.S.W. of Cebú, the capital. The town enjoys a healthy climate, being cool during November, December, January, and February, and hot during the rest of the year. The locals grow hemp, corn, coffee, sibucao, cacao, coconuts (for copra), and sugar, produce rough textiles, and make tuba (a type of wine used as a stimulant), clay pots and jars, salt, and soap. There is also some fishing in the area. The language spoken here is Cebú-Visayan.


DALBEATTIE, a police burgh of Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 3469. It lies on Dalbeattie Burn, 14½ m. S.W. of Dumfries by the Glasgow & South-Western railway. The town dates from 1780 and owes its rise to the granite quarries at Craignair and elsewhere in the vicinity, from which were derived the supplies used in the construction of the Thames Embankment, the docks at Odessa and Liverpool and other works. Besides quarrying, the industries include granite-polishing, concrete (crushed granite) works, dye-works, paper-mills and artificial manures. The estuary of the Urr, known as Rough Firth, is navigable by ships of from 80 to 100 tons, and small vessels can ascend as far as the mouth of Dalbeattie Burn, within a mile of the town. A mile to the north-west stand the ruins of the castle of Buittle or Botel, where lived John de Baliol, founder of Baliol college, who had married Dervorguila, daughter of Alan (d. 1234), the last “king” of Galloway.

DALBEATTIE, a police burgh in Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 3469. It sits on Dalbeattie Burn, 14½ miles southwest of Dumfries by the Glasgow & South-Western railway. The town was established in 1780 and grew due to the granite quarries at Craignair and nearby areas, which provided materials for the construction of the Thames Embankment, the docks at Odessa and Liverpool, and other projects. In addition to quarrying, the local industries include granite polishing, concrete (crushed granite) production, dye works, paper mills, and artificial fertilizers. The estuary of the Urr, known as Rough Firth, can accommodate ships weighing from 80 to 100 tons, and smaller vessels can navigate as far as the mouth of Dalbeattie Burn, less than a mile from the town. A mile northwest are the ruins of Buittle or Botel castle, where John de Baliol, the founder of Baliol College, lived after marrying Dervorguila, the daughter of Alan (d. 1234), the last “king” of Galloway.


DALBERG, the name of an ancient and distinguished German noble family, derived from the hamlet and castle (now in ruins) of Dalberg or Dalburg near Kreuznach in the Rhine Province. In the 14th century the original house of Dalberg became extinct in the male line, the fiefs passing to Johann Gerhard, chamberlain of the see of Worms, who married the heiress of his cousin, Anton of Dalberg, about 1330. His own family was of great antiquity, his ancestors having been hereditary ministerials of the bishop of Worms since the time of Ekbert the chamberlain, who founded in 1119 the Augustinian monastery of Frankenthal and died in 1132. By the close of the 15th century the Dalberg family had grown to be of such importance that, in 1494, the German King Maximilian I. granted them the honour of being the first to receive knighthood at the coronation; this part of the ceremonies being opened by the herald asking in a loud voice “Is no Dalberg present?” (Ist kein Dalberg da?). This picturesque privilege the family enjoyed till the end of the Holy Roman Empire. The elder line of the family of Dalberg-Dalberg became extinct in 1848, the younger, that of Dalberg-Herrnsheim, in 1833. The male line of the Dalbergs is now represented only by the family of Hessloch, descended from Gerhard of Dalberg (c. 1239), which in 1809 succeeded to the title and estates in Moravia and Bohemia of the extinct counts of Ostein.

DALBERG, is the name of an ancient and prominent German noble family, originating from the village and castle (now in ruins) of Dalberg or Dalburg near Kreuznach in the Rhine Province. In the 14th century, the original house of Dalberg died out in the male line, with the fiefs transferring to Johann Gerhard, the chamberlain of the see of Worms, who married the heiress of his cousin, Anton of Dalberg, around 1330. His own family was very old, as his ancestors had been hereditary ministers for the Bishop of Worms since the time of Ekbert the chamberlain, who founded the Augustinian monastery of Frankenthal in 1119 and died in 1132. By the end of the 15th century, the Dalberg family had become significant enough that, in 1494, the German King Maximilian I granted them the honor of being the first to receive knighthood at the coronation; this part of the ceremony began with the herald asking loudly, “Is no Dalberg present?” (Ist kein Dalberg da?). This notable privilege was held by the family until the end of the Holy Roman Empire. The elder branch of the Dalberg-Dalberg family became extinct in 1848, while the younger branch of Dalberg-Herrnsheim died out in 1833. The male line of the Dalbergs is now represented solely by the family of Hessloch, descended from Gerhard of Dalberg (c. 1239), which in 1809 inherited the title and estates in Moravia and Bohemia from the extinct counts of Ostein.

The following are the most noteworthy members of the family:

The following are the most important members of the family:

1. Johann von Dalberg (1445-1503), chamberlain and afterwards bishop of Worms, son of Wolfgang von Dalberg. He studied at Erfurt and in Italy, where he took his degree of doctor utriusque juris at Ferrara and devoted himself more especially to the study of Greek. Returning to Germany, he became privy councillor to the elector palatine Philip, whom he assisted in bringing the university of Heidelberg to the height of its fame. He was instrumental in founding the first chair of Greek, which was filled by his friend Rudolph Agricola, and he also established the university library and a college for students of civil law. He was an ardent humanist, was president of the Sodalitas Celtica founded by the poet Konrad Celtes (q.v.), and corresponded with many of the leading scholars of his day, to whom he showed himself a veritable Maecenas. He was employed also on various diplomatic missions by the emperor and the elector.

1. Johann von Dalberg (1445-1503), chamberlain and later bishop of Worms, was the son of Wolfgang von Dalberg. He studied at Erfurt and in Italy, where he earned his doctorate in law at Ferrara and focused especially on Greek studies. After returning to Germany, he became a privy councillor to the elector palatine Philip, helping him elevate the University of Heidelberg to great heights. He played a key role in establishing the first Greek chair, which was occupied by his friend Rudolph Agricola, and he also set up the university library and a college for civil law students. He was a passionate humanist, served as president of the Sodalitas Celtica founded by the poet Konrad Celtes (q.v.), and corresponded with many leading scholars of his time, supporting them as a true patron. He was also involved in various diplomatic missions for the emperor and the elector.

See K. Morneweg, Johann von Dalberg, ein deutscher Humanist und Bischof (Heidelberg, 1887).

See K. Morneweg, Johann von Dalberg, ein deutscher Humanist und Bischof (Heidelberg, 1887).

2. Karl Theodor Anton Maria von Dalberg (1744-1817), archbishop-elector of Mainz, arch-chancellor of the Holy Roman Empire, and afterwards primate of the Confederation of the Rhine and grand-duke of Frankfort. He was the son of Franz Heinrich, administrator of Worms, one of the chief counsellors of the elector of Mainz. Karl had devoted himself to the study of canon law, and entered the church; and, having been appointed in 1772 governor of Erfurt, he won further advancement by his successful administration; in 1787 he was elected coadjutor of Mainz and of Worms, and in 1788 of Constance; in 1802 he became archbishop-elector of Mainz and arch-chancellor of the Empire. As statesman Dalberg was distinguished by his “patriotic” attitude, whether in ecclesiastical matters, in which he leaned to the Febronian view of a German national church, or in his efforts to galvanize the atrophied machinery of the Empire into some sort of effective central government of Germany. Failing in this, he turned to the rising star of Napoleon, believing that he had found in “the truly great man, the mighty genius which governs the fate of the world,” the only force strong enough to save Germany from dissolution. By the peace of Lunéville, accordingly, though he had to surrender Worms and Constance, he received Regensburg, Aschaffenburg and Wetzlar. On the dissolution of the Empire in 1806 he formally resigned the office of arch-chancellor in a letter to the emperor Francis, and was appointed by Napoleon prince primate of the Confederation of the Rhine. In 1810, after the peace of Vienna (Schönbrunn), the grand-duchy of Frankfort was created for his benefit out of his 763 territories, which, in spite of the cession of Regensburg to Bavaria, were greatly augmented. Dalberg’s subservience, as a prince of the Confederation, to Napoleon was specially resented since, as a priest, he had no excuse of necessity on the ground of saving family or dynastic interests; his fortunes therefore fell with those of Napoleon, and, when he died on the 10th of February 1817, of all his dignities he was in possession only of the archbishopric of Regensburg. Weak and shortsighted as a statesman, as a man and prelate Dalberg was amiable, conscientious and large-hearted. Himself a scholar and author, he was a notable patron of letters, and was the friend of Goethe, Schiller and Wieland.

2. Karl Theodor Anton Maria von Dalberg (1744-1817), archbishop-elector of Mainz, arch-chancellor of the Holy Roman Empire, and later primate of the Confederation of the Rhine and grand-duke of Frankfort. He was the son of Franz Heinrich, the administrator of Worms, who was one of the main advisers to the elector of Mainz. Karl focused on studying canon law and entered the church; after being appointed governor of Erfurt in 1772, he advanced further due to his successful administration. In 1787, he was elected coadjutor of Mainz and Worms, and in 1788 of Constance. In 1802, he became archbishop-elector of Mainz and arch-chancellor of the Empire. As a statesman, Dalberg was known for his patriotic stance, whether in ecclesiastical issues, where he favored the Febronian idea of a German national church, or in his attempts to revive the struggling structure of the Empire into a more effective central government for Germany. When this failed, he aligned himself with the rising power of Napoleon, believing he had found “the truly great man, the mighty genius who governs the fate of the world,” the only force capable of saving Germany from collapse. By the peace of Lunéville, although he had to give up Worms and Constance, he gained Regensburg, Aschaffenburg, and Wetzlar. When the Empire dissolved in 1806, he officially resigned the position of arch-chancellor in a letter to Emperor Francis and was appointed by Napoleon as prince primate of the Confederation of the Rhine. In 1810, following the peace of Vienna (Schönbrunn), the grand-duchy of Frankfort was established for him from his territories, which, despite the loss of Regensburg to Bavaria, were significantly expanded. Dalberg’s loyalty as a prince of the Confederation to Napoleon was particularly criticized since, as a priest, he had no justification based on family or dynastic interests. His fortunes, therefore, declined with those of Napoleon, and when he died on February 10, 1817, he only held the archbishopric of Regensburg among his former titles. Although weak and short-sighted as a statesman, Dalberg was amiable, conscientious, and generous as a man and a prelate. A scholar and author himself, he was a significant supporter of literature and a friend of Goethe, Schiller, and Wieland.

See Karl v. Beaulieu-Marconnay, Karl von Dalberg und seine Zeit (Weimar, 1879).

See Karl v. Beaulieu-Marconnay, Karl von Dalberg und seine Zeit (Weimar, 1879).

3. Wolfgang Heribert von Dalberg (1750-1806), brother of the above. He was intendant of the theatre at Mannheim, which he brought to a high state of excellence. His chief claim to remembrance is that it was he who first put Schiller’s earlier dramas on the stage, and it is to him that the poet’s Briefe an den Freiherrn von Dalberg (Karlsruhe, 1819) are addressed. He himself wrote several plays, including adaptations of Shakespeare. His brother, Johann Friedrich Hugo von Dalberg (1752-1812), canon of Trier, Worms and Spires, had some vogue as a composer and writer on musical subjects.

3. Wolfgang Heribert von Dalberg (1750-1806), brother of the previous mentioned. He was the director of the theater in Mannheim, which he developed to a high level of excellence. His main legacy is that he was the first to stage Schiller’s early plays, and it is to him that the poet’s Briefe an den Freiherrn von Dalberg (Karlsruhe, 1819) are addressed. He also wrote several plays, including adaptations of Shakespeare. His brother, Johann Friedrich Hugo von Dalberg (1752-1812), a canon of Trier, Worms, and Spires, gained some popularity as a composer and a writer on musical topics.

4. Emmerich Joseph, Duc de Dalberg (1773-1833), son of Baron Wolfgang Heribert. He was born at Mainz on the 30th of May 1773. In 1803 he entered the service of Baden, which he represented as envoy in Paris. After the peace of Schönbrunn (1809) he entered the service of Napoleon, who, in 1810, created him a duke and councillor of state. He had from the first been on intimate terms with Talleyrand, and retired from the public service when the latter fell out of the emperor’s favour. In 1814 he was a member of the provisional government by whom the Bourbons were recalled, and he attended the congress of Vienna, with Talleyrand, as minister plenipotentiary. He appended his signature to the decree of outlawry launched in 1815 by the European powers against Napoleon. For this his property in France was confiscated, but was given back after the second Restoration, when he became a minister of state and a peer of France. In 1816 he was sent as ambassador to Turin. The latter years of his life he spent on his estates at Herrnsheim, where he died on the 27th of April 1833.

4. Emmerich Joseph, Duke of Dalberg (1773-1833), son of Baron Wolfgang Heribert. He was born in Mainz on May 30, 1773. In 1803, he joined the service of Baden, where he represented as envoy in Paris. After the peace of Schönbrunn (1809), he entered Napoleon's service, who made him a duke and councillor of state in 1810. He had always been close with Talleyrand and stepped back from public service when Talleyrand lost the emperor’s favor. In 1814, he was part of the provisional government that recalled the Bourbons and attended the Congress of Vienna with Talleyrand as minister plenipotentiary. He signed the decree of outlawry issued in 1815 by the European powers against Napoleon. Because of this, his property in France was confiscated but returned after the second Restoration, when he became a minister of state and a peer of France. In 1816, he was appointed ambassador to Turin. He spent the final years of his life on his estates in Herrnsheim, where he died on April 27, 1833.

The due de Dalberg had inherited the family property of Herrnsheim from his uncle the arch-chancellor Karl von Dalberg, and this estate passed, through his daughter and heiress, Marie Louise Pelline de Dalberg, by her marriage with Sir (Ferdinand) Richard Edward Acton, 7th baronet (who assumed the additional name of Dalberg), to her son the historian, John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton (q.v.).

The Duke of Dalberg inherited the family property of Herrnsheim from his uncle, the arch-chancellor Karl von Dalberg. This estate passed to his daughter and heiress, Marie Louise Pelline de Dalberg, through her marriage to Sir (Ferdinand) Richard Edward Acton, 7th baronet (who took on the additional name of Dalberg), and then to her son, the historian John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton (q.v.).


DALE, ROBERT WILLIAM (1829-1895), English Nonconformist divine, was born in London on the 1st of December 1829, and was educated at Spring Hill College, Birmingham, for the Congregational ministry. In 1853 he was invited to Carr’s Lane Chapel, Birmingham, as co-pastor with John Angell James (q.v.), on whose death in 1859 he became sole pastor for the rest of his life. In the London University M.A. examination (1853) Dale stood first in philosophy and won the gold medal. The degree of LL.D. was conferred upon him by the university of Glasgow during the lord rectorship of John Bright. Yale University gave him its D.D. degree, but he never used it, “not because it came from America, but because I have a sentimental objection—perhaps it is something more—to divinity degrees.” Dale displayed a keen interest in Liberal politics and in the municipal affairs of Birmingham; and his high moral ideal made him a great force on the progressive side. In 1886 he adhered to Mr Chamberlain in opposition to Irish Home Rule, but this difference did not diminish his influence even among those Liberals and Nonconformists who adopted the Gladstonian standpoint. In the education controversy of 1870 he took an important part, ably championing the Nonconformist position. When Mr Foster’s bill appeared, Dale attacked it on the grounds that the schools would in many cases be purely denominational institutions, that the conscience clause gave inadequate protection, and that school boards were empowered by it to make grants out of the rates to maintain sectarian schools. He was himself in favour of secular education, claiming that it was the only logical solution and the only legitimate outcome of Nonconformist principles. In Birmingham the controversy was terminated in 1879 by a compromise, from which, however, Dale stood aloof. His interest in educational affairs had led him to accept a seat on the Birmingham school board. He was appointed a governor of the grammar school, served on the royal commission of education, and was also chairman of the council of Mansfield College, Oxford, with the foundation of which he had much to do. He was a strong advocate of disestablishment, holding that the church was essentially a spiritual brotherhood, and that any vestige of political authority impaired its spiritual work. In church polity he held that congregationalism constituted the most fitting environment in which religion could achieve her work. Perhaps the most effective contributions he made to ecclesiastical literature were those dealing with the history and principles of the congregational system. At his death on the 13th of March 1895 he left an unfinished MS. of the history of congregationalism, since edited and completed (1907) by his son, A. W. W. Dale, principal of Liverpool University.

DALE, ROBERT WILLIAM (1829-1895), was an English Nonconformist minister, born in London on December 1, 1829. He studied at Spring Hill College in Birmingham to prepare for the Congregational ministry. In 1853, he was invited to be a co-pastor at Carr’s Lane Chapel, Birmingham, alongside John Angell James (q.v.), and became the sole pastor after James passed away in 1859, serving in that role for the rest of his life. In the London University M.A. examination of 1853, Dale ranked first in philosophy and received a gold medal. The University of Glasgow awarded him an LL.D. during John Bright's lord rectorship, while Yale University granted him a D.D. degree, which he chose not to use, saying, “not because it came from America, but because I have a sentimental objection—perhaps it is something more—to divinity degrees.” Dale was deeply interested in Liberal politics and municipal issues in Birmingham, and his strong moral values made him a significant figure on the progressive side. In 1886, he supported Mr. Chamberlain against Irish Home Rule, but this disagreement did not lessen his influence among Liberals and Nonconformists who aligned with the Gladstonian perspective. He actively participated in the education debate of 1870, passionately defending the Nonconformist viewpoint. When Mr. Foster’s bill was introduced, Dale criticized it for allowing schools to become purely denominational, claiming the conscience clause offered inadequate protection, and that it permitted school boards to fund sectarian schools using public rates. He advocated for secular education, arguing it was the only logical and legitimate outcome of Nonconformist principles. The education controversy in Birmingham was settled by a compromise in 1879, which Dale chose to stay away from. His commitment to education led him to join the Birmingham school board, and he served as a governor of the grammar school, was part of the royal commission on education, and chaired the council of Mansfield College, Oxford, which he significantly helped establish. A strong supporter of disestablishment, Dale believed the church was fundamentally a spiritual community and that any remaining political authority undermined its spiritual mission. In terms of church governance, he argued that congregationalism was the most suitable framework for religion to accomplish its goals. Some of his most impactful contributions to church literature focused on the history and principles of the congregational system. When he died on March 13, 1895, he left behind an unfinished manuscript on the history of Congregationalism, which was later edited and completed by his son, A. W. W. Dale, principal of Liverpool University, in 1907.

Dale’s powers were fully appreciated by his colleagues in the congregational ministry, and at the early age of thirty-nine he was elected chairman of the Congregational union of England and Wales. His addresses from the chair on “Christ and the Controversies of Christendom,” and the “Holy Spirit and the Christian Ministry” were remarkable for a keen insight into the conditions and demands of the age. For some years he edited the Congregationalist, a monthly magazine connected with the denomination. In 1877 he was appointed Lyman Beecher lecturer at Yale University, and visited America to deliver his “Lectures on Preaching.” At the International Council of Congregationalists, meeting in London in 1891, the first gathering of the kind, Dale was nominated for the presidency. He accepted the honour and delivered an address on “The Divine Life in Man.”

Dale's abilities were fully recognized by his peers in the congregational ministry, and at the young age of thirty-nine, he was elected chairman of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. His speeches from the chair on “Christ and the Controversies of Christendom” and “The Holy Spirit and the Christian Ministry” were notable for their sharp insight into the conditions and needs of the time. For several years, he edited the Congregationalist, a monthly magazine affiliated with the denomination. In 1877, he was appointed Lyman Beecher lecturer at Yale University and traveled to America to deliver his “Lectures on Preaching.” At the International Council of Congregationalists held in London in 1891, the first event of its kind, Dale was nominated for the presidency. He accepted the honor and gave an address on “The Divine Life in Man.”

As a theologian Dale occupied an influential position amongst the religious thinkers of the 19th century. He ably interpreted the Evangelical thought of his age, but his Evangelicalism was of a broad and progressive type. His chief contribution to constructive theological thought is his work On The Atonement, in which he contends that the death of Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of man were remitted. Among his other theological books are: The Epistle to the Ephesians (a series of expositions), Christian Doctrine, The Living Christ and the Four Gospels, Fellowship with Christ, The Epistle to James, and The Ten Commandments.

As a theologian, Dale held a significant position among the religious thinkers of the 19th century. He skillfully interpreted the Evangelical ideas of his time, but his Evangelicalism was broad and progressive. His main contribution to constructive theological thought is his work On The Atonement, where he argues that Christ's death is the objective basis for the forgiveness of human sins. His other theological books include: The Epistle to the Ephesians (a series of expositions), Christian Doctrine, The Living Christ and the Four Gospels, Fellowship with Christ, The Epistle to James, and The Ten Commandments.


DALE, SIR THOMAS (d. 1619), British naval commander and colonial deputy-governor of Virginia. From about 1588 to 1609 he was in the service of the Low Countries with the English army originally under Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester; in 1606, while visiting in England, he was knighted by King James; from 1611 to 1616 he was actually though not always nominally in chief control of the province of Virginia either as deputy-governor or as “high marshall,” and he is best remembered for the energy and the extreme rigour of his administration there, which established order and in various ways seems to have benefited the colony; he himself declared that he left it “in great prosperity and peace.” Under him began the first real expansion of the colony with the establishment of the settlement of Henrico on and about what was later known as Farrar’s Island; it was he who, about 1614, took the first step toward abolishing the communal system by the introduction of private holdings, and it was during his administration that the first code of laws of Virginia, nominally in force from 1610 to 1619, was effectively tested. This code, entitled “Articles, Lawes, and Orders—Divine, Politique, and Martiall,” but popularly known as Dale’s Code, was notable for its pitiless severity, and seems to have been prepared in large part by Dale himself. He left Virginia in 1616 764 with the intention probably of returning to the service of the Low Countries, but instead was given command of an English fleet sent against the Dutch, defeated the enemy near Batavia in the East Indies late in the year 1618, arrived at Masulipatam in July 1619, and died there on the 9th of the following month.

DALE, SIR THOMAS (d. 1619), British naval commander and colonial deputy-governor of Virginia. From around 1588 to 1609, he served in the Low Countries with the English army, initially under Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. In 1606, while visiting England, he was knighted by King James. From 1611 to 1616, he was actually, though not always officially, in charge of the province of Virginia as either deputy-governor or “high marshall.” He is best remembered for the energy and strictness of his administration, which established order and benefited the colony in various ways; he himself declared that he left it “in great prosperity and peace.” Under his leadership, the first significant expansion of the colony began with the establishment of the settlement of Henrico on and around what would later be known as Farrar’s Island. He was the one who, around 1614, took the first step toward ending the communal system by introducing private land holdings, and it was during his administration that the first code of laws of Virginia, which was nominally in effect from 1610 to 1619, was effectively tested. This code, titled “Articles, Lawes, and Orders—Divine, Politique, and Martiall,” but commonly known as Dale’s Code, was notable for its harsh severity and appears to have been largely prepared by Dale himself. He left Virginia in 1616 764 with the probable intention of returning to service in the Low Countries, but instead received command of an English fleet sent against the Dutch. He defeated the enemy near Batavia in the East Indies late in 1618, arrived at Masulipatam in July 1619, and died there on the 9th of the following month.

An account of Dale’s career in Virginia is given in Alexander Brown’s The First Republic in America (Boston, 1898); a scholarly discussion of “Dale’s Code” by Walter F. Prince may be found in vol. i. of the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1899 (Washington, D.C., 1900), and the code itself is reprinted in Peter Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. iii., No. 11.

An account of Dale’s career in Virginia can be found in Alexander Brown’s The First Republic in America (Boston, 1898); a scholarly discussion of “Dale’s Code” by Walter F. Prince is available in vol. i. of the Annual Report of the American Historical Association from 1899 (Washington, D.C., 1900), and the code itself is reprinted in Peter Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. iii., No. 11.


DALECARLIA (Dalarne, “the Dales”), a west midland region of Sweden, virtually coincident with the district (län) of Kopparberg, which extends from the mountains of the Norwegian frontier to within 25 m. of Gefle on the Baltic coast. It is a region full of historical associations, and possesses strong local characteristics in respect of its products, and especially of its people. The Dalecarlians or Dalesmen speak their own peculiar dialect, wear their own peculiar costumes, and are famed for their brave spirit and sturdy love of independence. In 1434, led by Engelbrecht, the miner, they rose against the oppressive tyranny of the officers of Eric XIV. of Denmark, and in 1519-1523 it was among them that Gustavus Vasa found his staunchest supporters in his patriotic task of freeing Sweden from the yoke of the Danes. The districts around Lakes Runn and Siljan (“the Eye of the Dales”), the principal sheets of water in the valleys of the Dal rivers, are consequently classic ground. By the banks of Lake Runn, for example, is seen the barn in which Vasa threshed corn in disguise, when still a fugitive from the Danes. The people are for the most part small peasant proprietors. They eke out their scanty returns from tilling the soil by a variety of home industries, such as making scythes, saws, bells, wooden wares, hair goods, and so forth. About three quarters of the whole district is covered with forest. Besides the wealth of the forests, the Dales contain some of the largest and most prolific iron mines in Sweden, notably those of Grängesberg. Copper is mined at Falun (q.v.), the chief town of Kopparberg, and some silver and lead, zinc and sulphur is found. In consequence of this the district has numerous smelting furnaces, blasting and rolling mills, iron and metallurgical works, as well as saw-mills, wood-pulp factories, and chemical works.

DALECARLIA (Dalarne, “the Dales”), a west midland region of Sweden, mostly aligns with the Kopparberg district (län), which stretches from the Norwegian border mountains to about 25 miles from Gefle on the Baltic coast. This area is rich in historical significance and has strong local traits regarding its products, especially its people. The Dalecarlians, or Dalesmen, speak their own unique dialect, wear distinctive costumes, and are known for their courageous spirit and strong desire for independence. In 1434, led by Engelbrecht, a miner, they revolted against the oppressive rule of Eric XIV of Denmark’s officers. During 1519-1523, Gustavus Vasa found his most loyal supporters among them in his quest to liberate Sweden from Danish control. The regions around Lakes Runn and Siljan (“the Eye of the Dales”), which are the main bodies of water in the Dal rivers' valleys, are therefore historic sites. By the shores of Lake Runn, for instance, you can see the barn where Vasa, disguised, threshed corn while fleeing from the Danes. Most residents are small-scale farmers. They supplement their meager farming incomes with various home industries such as making scythes, saws, bells, wooden goods, hair products, and more. About three-quarters of the area is forested. In addition to the forest's resources, the Dales are home to some of Sweden's largest and most productive iron mines, particularly in Grängesberg. Copper is mined in Falun (q.v.), the main town of Kopparberg, along with some silver, lead, zinc, and sulfur. As a result, the area has many smelting furnaces, blasting and rolling mills, iron and metallurgy factories, as well as sawmills, wood-pulp plants, and chemical facilities.

See G. H. Mellin, Skildringar af den Skandinaviska Nordens Folklif og Natur, vol. iii. (1865); and Frederika Bremer, I Dalarne (1845), of which there is an English translation by William and Mary Howitt (1852). For the dialect, see a paper by A. Noreen, in De Svenska Landsmålen, vol. iv. (1881).

See G. H. Mellin, Descriptions of the Scandinavian North's Folklore and Nature, vol. iii. (1865); and Frederika Bremer, In Dalarna (1845), which has an English translation by William and Mary Howitt (1852). For the dialect, refer to a paper by A. Noreen, in The Swedish Dialects, vol. iv. (1881).


DALGAIRNS, JOHN DOBREE (1818-1876), English Roman Catholic priest, was born in Guernsey on the 21st of October 1818. About the age of seventeen he entered Exeter College, Oxford, and soon after taking his degree he contributed a letter to Louis Veuillot’s ultramontane organ L’Univers, on “Anglican Church Parties,” which gave him considerable repute. Together with Mark Pattison and others, he translated the Catena aurea of St Thomas Aquinas, a commentary on the Gospels, taken from the works of the Fathers. He was a contributor to Newman’s Lives of the English Saints, for which he wrote the beautiful studies on the Cistercian Saints. The Life of St Stephen Harding has been translated into several languages. Dalgairns became a Roman Catholic in 1845, and was ordained priest in the following year. He joined his friend John Henry Newman in Rome, and, together with him, entered the Congregation of the Oratory. On his return to England in 1848, he was attached to the London Oratory, where he laboured successfully as a priest, with the exception of three years spent in Birmingham. Dalgairns was a prominent member of the well-known “Metaphysical Society.” He died at Burgess Hill, near Brighton, on the 6th of April 1876. During the Catholic period of his life, Dalgairns wrote The Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, with an Introduction on the History of Jansenism (London 1853); The German Mystics of the Fourteenth Century (London, 1858); The Holy Communion, its Philosophy, Theology and Practice (Dublin, 1861).

DALGAIRNS, JOHN DOBREE (1818-1876), was an English Roman Catholic priest born in Guernsey on October 21, 1818. Around the age of seventeen, he entered Exeter College, Oxford, and shortly after earning his degree, he wrote a letter for Louis Veuillot’s ultramontane publication L’Univers, on “Anglican Church Parties,” which gained him significant recognition. Along with Mark Pattison and others, he translated the Catena aurea of St Thomas Aquinas, a commentary on the Gospels based on the works of the Church Fathers. He also contributed to Newman’s Lives of the English Saints, where he wrote insightful studies on the Cistercian Saints. The Life of St Stephen Harding has been translated into several languages. Dalgairns converted to Roman Catholicism in 1845 and was ordained as a priest the following year. He joined his friend John Henry Newman in Rome, and together they became part of the Congregation of the Oratory. After returning to England in 1848, he became associated with the London Oratory, where he served successfully as a priest, apart from three years spent in Birmingham. Dalgairns was a notable member of the renowned “Metaphysical Society.” He passed away in Burgess Hill, near Brighton, on April 6, 1876. Throughout the Catholic phase of his life, Dalgairns wrote The Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, with an Introduction on the History of Jansenism (London 1853); The German Mystics of the Fourteenth Century (London, 1858); The Holy Communion, its Philosophy, Theology and Practice (Dublin, 1861).

A list of his contributions on religious and philosophical subjects, to the reviews and periodicals, is given in J. Gillow’s Bibliographical Dictionary of English Catholics, vol. ii.

A list of his contributions on religious and philosophical topics to the reviews and periodicals can be found in J. Gillow’s Bibliographical Dictionary of English Catholics, vol. ii.


DALGARNO, GEORGE (c. 1626-1687), English writer, was born at Old Aberdeen about 1626. He appears to have studied at Marischal College; but he finally settled in Oxford, where, according to Wood, “he taught a private grammar-school with good success for about thirty years,” and where he died on the 28th of August 1687. He was master of Elizabeth school, Guernsey, for some ten years, but resigned in 1672. In his work entitled Didascalocophus, or the Deaf and Dumb Man’s Tutor (Oxford, 1680), he explained, for the first time, the hand alphabet for the deaf and dumb, though he does not claim to have invented this method of communication. Twenty years before the publication of his Didascalocophus, Dalgarno had given to the world a very ingenious piece entitled Ars Signorum (1661), dividing ideas into seventeen classes, to be represented by the letters of the Latin alphabet with the addition of two Greek characters. Among the Sloane manuscripts are several tracts by Dalgarno, further elucidating his system of universal shorthand. Leibnitz on various occasions alluded to the Ars signorum in commendatory terms.

DALGARNO, GEORGE (c. 1626-1687), an English writer, was born in Old Aberdeen around 1626. He seemingly studied at Marischal College but eventually settled in Oxford, where, according to Wood, “he successfully ran a private grammar school for about thirty years,” and he passed away on August 28, 1687. He was the headmaster of Elizabeth school in Guernsey for about ten years but resigned in 1672. In his work titled Didascalocophus, or the Deaf and Dumb Man’s Tutor (Oxford, 1680), he explained, for the first time, the hand alphabet for the deaf and mute, although he does not claim to have created this method of communication. Twenty years before the release of Didascalocophus, Dalgarno published a clever piece called Ars Signorum (1661), categorizing ideas into seventeen classes represented by the letters of the Latin alphabet and two Greek characters. Among the Sloane manuscripts are several writings by Dalgarno that further clarify his universal shorthand system. Leibnitz referred to the Ars Signorum on various occasions in favorable terms.

The chief works of Dalgarno were reprinted (1834) for the Maitland Club.

The main works of Dalgarno were reprinted (1834) for the Maitland Club.


DALHOUSIE, JAMES ANDREW BROUN RAMSAY, 1st Marquess and 10th Earl of (1812-1860), British statesman and Indian administrator, was born at Dalhousie Castle, Scotland, on the 22nd of April 1812. He crowded into his short life conspicuous public services in England, and established an unrivalled position among the master-builders of the Indian empire. Denounced on the eve of his death as the chief offender who failed to notice the signs of the mutiny of 1857, and even aggravated the crisis by his overbearing self-consciousness, centralizing activity and reckless annexations, he stands out in the clear light of history as the far-sighted governor-general who consolidated British rule in India, laid truly the foundations of its later administration, and by his sound policy enabled his successors to stem the tide of rebellion.

DALHOUSIE, JAMES ANDREW BROUN RAMSAY, Marquis and 10th Earl of (1812-1860), British statesman and administrator in India, was born at Dalhousie Castle, Scotland, on April 22, 1812. He accomplished a lot in his short life, serving prominently in England and establishing a leading role among those who built the Indian empire. Although he was criticized just before his death as the main culprit for not recognizing the signs of the 1857 mutiny and for worsening the situation with his arrogant self-importance, centralization efforts, and reckless annexations, he is remembered in history as a visionary governor-general who solidified British rule in India, truly laid the groundwork for its future administration, and through his effective policies enabled his successors to counter the wave of rebellion.

He was the third son of George Ramsay, 9th earl of Dalhousie (1770-1838), one of Wellington’s generals, who, after holding the highest offices in Canada, became commander-in-chief in India, and of his wife Christina Broun of Coalstoun, a lady of noble lineage and distinguished gifts. From his father he inherited a vigorous self-reliance and a family pride which urged him to prove worthy of the Ramsays who had “not crawled through seven centuries of their country’s history,” while to his mother he owed his high-bred courtesy and his deeply seated reverence for religion. The Ramsays of Dalhousie (or Dalwolsie) in Midlothian were a branch of the main line of Scottish Ramsays, of whom the earliest known is Simon de Ramsay, of Huntingdon, England, mentioned in 1140 as the grantee of lands in West Lothian at the hands of David I. A Sir William de Ramsay of Dalhousie swore fealty to Edward I. in 1296, but is famous for having in 1320 signed the letter to the pope asserting the independence of Scotland; and his supposed son, Sir Alexander Ramsay (d. 1342), was the Scottish patriot and capturer of Roxburgh Castle (1342), who, having been made warder of the castle and sheriff of Teviotdale by David II., was soon afterwards carried off and starved to death by his predecessor, the Douglas, in revenge. Sir John Ramsay of Dalhousie (1580-1626), James VI.’s favourite, is famous for rescuing the king in the Gowrie conspiracy, and was created (1606) Viscount Haddington and Lord Ramsay of Barns (subsequently baron of Kingston and earl of Holderness in England). The barony of Ramsay of Melrose was granted in 1618 to his brother George Ramsay of Dalhousie (d. 1629), whose son William Ramsay (d. 1674) was made 1st earl of Dalhousie in 1633.

He was the third son of George Ramsay, the 9th Earl of Dalhousie (1770-1838), one of Wellington’s generals. After serving in the highest positions in Canada, he became the commander-in-chief in India. His mother was Christina Broun of Coalstoun, a woman of noble descent and remarkable talents. From his father, he inherited a strong sense of self-reliance and a family pride that pushed him to prove himself worthy of the Ramsays who had "not crawled through seven centuries of their country’s history." From his mother, he gained his refined courtesy and deep-rooted respect for religion. The Ramsays of Dalhousie (or Dalwolsie) in Midlothian were a branch of the main line of Scottish Ramsays, with the earliest known member being Simon de Ramsay from Huntingdon, England, mentioned in 1140 as a grantee of lands in West Lothian by David I. A Sir William de Ramsay of Dalhousie pledged loyalty to Edward I in 1296 but is best known for signing the 1320 letter to the pope that declared Scotland's independence. His supposed son, Sir Alexander Ramsay (d. 1342), was a Scottish patriot who captured Roxburgh Castle in 1342. After being appointed as the castle's keeper and sheriff of Teviotdale by David II, he was later abducted and starved to death by his predecessor, the Douglas, out of revenge. Sir John Ramsay of Dalhousie (1580-1626), James VI’s favorite, is recognized for saving the king during the Gowrie conspiracy. He was made Viscount Haddington and Lord Ramsay of Barns in 1606 (later becoming Baron of Kingston and Earl of Holderness in England). The barony of Ramsay of Melrose was granted in 1618 to his brother George Ramsay of Dalhousie (d. 1629), whose son William Ramsay (d. 1674) was named the 1st Earl of Dalhousie in 1633.

The 9th earl was in 1815 created Baron Dalhousie in the peerage of the United Kingdom, and had three sons, the two elder of whom died early. His youngest son, the subject of this article, was small in stature, but his firm chiselled mouth, high forehead and masterful manner intimated a dignity that none could overlook. Yet his early life gave little promise of the dominating force of his character or of his ability to rise to the full height of his splendid opportunities. Nor did those brought 765 into closest intimacy with him, whether at school or at Oxford, suspect the higher qualities of statesmanship which afterwards established his fame on so firm a foundation.

The 9th earl was made Baron Dalhousie in the peerage of the United Kingdom in 1815 and had three sons, two of whom died young. His youngest son, the focus of this article, was short in stature, but his strong, defined mouth, high forehead, and commanding presence suggested a dignity that everyone noticed. However, his early life did not hint at the powerful character he would develop or his ability to fully embrace the impressive opportunities ahead of him. Even those who were closest to him, whether in school or at Oxford, didn't recognize the exceptional qualities of leadership that would later secure his lasting reputation.

Several years of his early boyhood were spent with his father and mother in Canada, reminiscences of which were still vivid with him when governor-general of India. Returning to Scotland he was prepared for Harrow, where he entered in 1825. Two years later he was removed from school, his entire education being entrusted to the Rev. Mr Temple, incumbent of a quiet parish in Staffordshire. To this gentleman he referred in later days as having taught him all he knew, and to his training he must have owed those habits of regularity and that indomitable industry which marked his adult life. In October 1829 he passed on to Christ Church, Oxford, where he worked fairly hard, won some distinction, and made many lifelong friends. His studies, however, were so greatly interrupted by the protracted illness and death in 1832 of his only surviving brother, that Lord Ramsay, as he then became, had to content himself with entering for a “pass” degree, though the examiners marked their appreciation of his work by placing him in the fourth class of honours for Michaelmas 1833. He then travelled in Italy and Switzerland, enriching with copious entries the diary which he religiously kept up through life, and storing his mind with valuable observations.

Several years of his early childhood were spent with his father and mother in Canada, memories of which were still fresh in his mind when he served as governor-general of India. After returning to Scotland, he prepared for Harrow, where he started in 1825. Two years later, he left school, and his whole education was assigned to Rev. Mr. Temple, the vicar of a quiet parish in Staffordshire. He later referred to this man as the one who taught him everything he knew, and he likely owed his habits of discipline and relentless work ethic to that training, which characterized his adult life. In October 1829, he moved on to Christ Church, Oxford, where he studied hard, earned some recognition, and made many lifelong friends. However, his studies were significantly disrupted by the long illness and death in 1832 of his only surviving brother, which led Lord Ramsay, as he became known, to settle for a “pass” degree, although the examiners acknowledged his efforts by placing him in the fourth class of honors for Michaelmas 1833. He then traveled in Italy and Switzerland, filling his diary with extensive entries that he diligently maintained throughout his life, and enriching his mind with valuable insights.

An unsuccessful but courageous contest at the general election in 1835 for one of the seats in parliament for Edinburgh, fought against such veterans as the future speaker, James Abercrombie, afterwards Lord Dunfermline, and John Campbell, future lord chancellor, was followed in 1837 by Ramsay’s return to the House of Commons as member for East Lothian. In the previous year he had married Lady Susan Hay, daughter of the marquess of Tweeddale, whose companionship was his chief support in India, and whose death in 1853 left him a heartbroken man. In 1838 his father had died after a long illness, while less than a year later he lost his mother.

An unsuccessful yet brave campaign in the general election of 1835 for one of the parliamentary seats in Edinburgh, competing against experienced opponents like the future speaker, James Abercrombie, who later became Lord Dunfermline, and John Campbell, the future lord chancellor, was followed in 1837 by Ramsay's return to the House of Commons as the representative for East Lothian. The year before, he had married Lady Susan Hay, daughter of the marquess of Tweeddale, whose support was crucial for him during his time in India, and whose passing in 1853 left him devastated. In 1838, his father died after a prolonged illness, and less than a year later, he lost his mother.

Succeeding to the peerage, the new earl soon made his mark in a speech delivered on the 16th of June 1840 in support of Lord Aberdeen’s Church of Scotland Benefices Bill, a controversy arising out of the Auchterarder case, in which he had already taken part in the “general assembly” in opposition to Dr Chalmers. In May 1843 he became vice-president of the board of trade, Gladstone being president, and was sworn in as a member of the privy council. Succeeding Gladstone as president in 1845, he threw himself into the work during the crisis of the railway mania with such energy that his health partially broke down under the strain. In the struggle over the corn laws he ranged himself on the side of Sir Robert Peel, and after the failure of Lord John Russell to form a ministry he resumed his post at the board of trade, entering the cabinet on the retirement of Lord Stanley. When Peel resigned office in June 1846, Lord John offered Dalhousie a seat in the cabinet, an offer which he declined from a fear that acceptance might “involve the loss of public character.” Another attempt to secure his services in the appointment of president of the railway board was equally unsuccessful; but in 1847 he accepted the post of governor-general of India in succession to Lord Hardinge, on the understanding that he was to be left in “entire and unquestioned possession” of his own “personal independence with reference to party politics.”

Taking over the peerage, the new earl quickly made his mark with a speech on June 16, 1840, supporting Lord Aberdeen’s Church of Scotland Benefices Bill, a controversy that came from the Auchterarder case, where he had already participated in the “general assembly” against Dr. Chalmers. In May 1843, he became vice-president of the board of trade, with Gladstone as president, and was sworn in as a member of the privy council. When he succeeded Gladstone as president in 1845, he threw himself into the work during the crisis of the railway mania with such determination that his health partially broke down from the pressure. In the fight over the corn laws, he aligned himself with Sir Robert Peel, and after Lord John Russell's failure to form a ministry, he returned to his position at the board of trade and entered the cabinet when Lord Stanley retired. When Peel resigned in June 1846, Lord John offered Dalhousie a cabinet position, which he turned down out of concern that accepting it might “involve the loss of public character.” Another attempt to secure him as the president of the railway board also failed; however, in 1847, he accepted the role of governor-general of India, succeeding Lord Hardinge, on the condition that he would maintain “entire and unquestioned possession” of his own “personal independence concerning party politics.”

Dalhousie assumed charge of his dual duties as governor-general of India and governor of Bengal on the 12th of January 1848, and shortly afterwards he was honoured with the green ribbon of the Order of the Thistle. In writing to the president of the board of control, Sir John Hobhouse, he was able to assure him that everything was quiet. This statement, however, was to be falsified by events almost before it could reach England. For on the 19th of April Vans Agnew of the civil service and Lieutenant Anderson of the Bombay European regiment, having been sent to take charge of Multan from Diwan Mulraj, were murdered there, and within a short time the Sikh troops and sardars joined in open rebellion. Dalhousie agreed with Sir Hugh Gough, the commander-in-chief, that the Company’s military forces were neither adequately equipped with transport and supplies, nor otherwise prepared to take the field immediately. He also foresaw the spread of the rebellion, and the necessity that must arise, not merely for the capture of Multan, but also for the entire subjugation of the Punjab. He therefore resolutely delayed to strike, organized a strong army for operations in November, and himself proceeded to the Punjab. Despite the brilliant successes gained by Herbert Edwardes in conflict with Mulraj, and Goagh’s indecisive victories at Ramnagar in November, at Sadulapur in December, and at Chillianwalla in the following month, the stubborn resistance at Multan showed that the task required the utmost resources of the government. At length, on the 22nd of January 1849, the Multan fortress was taken by General Whish, who was thus set at liberty to join Gough at Gujrat. Here a complete victory was won on the 21st of February, the Sikh army surrendered at Rawal Pindi, and their Afghan allies were chased out of India. For his services the earl of Dalhousie received the thanks of parliament and a step in the peerage, as marquess.

Dalhousie officially took on his roles as Governor-General of India and Governor of Bengal on January 12, 1848, and shortly after, he was awarded the green ribbon of the Order of the Thistle. In a letter to Sir John Hobhouse, the president of the Board of Control, he assured him that everything was calm. However, this assurance was quickly proven wrong by unfolding events. On April 19, Vans Agnew from the civil service and Lieutenant Anderson of the Bombay European Regiment, sent to take control of Multan from Diwan Mulraj, were murdered there. Soon after, the Sikh troops and leaders openly rebelled. Dalhousie and Sir Hugh Gough, the commander-in-chief, agreed that the Company's military forces were poorly equipped with transport and supplies and were not ready to launch an immediate campaign. He anticipated the spread of the rebellion and recognized the need not only to capture Multan but also to fully subdue the Punjab. As a result, he strategically held off attacking, organized a strong army for operations in November, and traveled to the Punjab himself. Despite the impressive victories achieved by Herbert Edwardes against Mulraj and Gough’s inconclusive wins at Ramnagar in November, Sadulapur in December, and Chillianwalla the following month, the determined resistance in Multan showed that the mission required all of the government’s resources. Finally, on January 22, 1849, General Whish captured the Multan fortress and was then able to join Gough at Gujrat. A decisive victory was secured on February 21, leading to the surrender of the Sikh army at Rawal Pindi, and their Afghan allies were driven out of India. For his efforts, the Earl of Dalhousie received the thanks of Parliament and was elevated in rank, becoming a Marquess.

The war being now over, Dalhousie, without waiting for instructions from home, annexed the Punjab, and made provision for the custody and education of the infant maharaja. For the present the province was administered by a triumvirate under the personal supervision of the governor-general, and later, a place having been found for Henry Lawrence in Rajputana, by John Lawrence as sole commissioner. Twice did Dalhousie tour through its length and breadth, settling on the spot all matters of importance, and when he left India no province could show a better record of progress.

The war was over, so Dalhousie, without waiting for orders from home, took control of the Punjab and arranged for the care and education of the young maharaja. For the time being, the province was run by a group of three under the direct oversight of the governor-general, and later, after finding a position for Henry Lawrence in Rajputana, by John Lawrence as the sole commissioner. Dalhousie traveled across the region twice, addressing all major issues on-site, and when he left India, no province could boast a better record of progress.

One further addition to the empire was made by conquest. The arrogant Burmese court at Ava was bound by the treaty of Yandabo, 1826, to protect British ships in Burmese waters, but the outrageous conduct of the governor of Rangoon towards the masters of the “Monarch” and “Champion” met with no redress from the king. Dalhousie adopted the maxim of Lord Wellesley “that an insult offered to the British flag at the mouth of the Ganges should be resented as promptly and fully as an insult offered at the mouth of the Thames”; but, anxious to save the cost of war, he tried to settle the dispute by diplomacy. When that failed he made vigorous preparation for the campaign to be undertaken in the autumn, giving his attention to the adequate provision of rations, boat transport, and medical supplies, composing differences between the military contingents from Bengal and Madras, and between the military and naval forces employed, and conferring with General Godwin whom he had chosen to command the expedition. Martaban was taken on the 5th of April 1852, and Rangoon and Bassein shortly afterwards. Since, however, the court of Ava showed no sign of submission, the second campaign opened in October, and after the capture of Prome and Pegu the annexation of the province of Pegu was declared by a proclamation dated the 20th of December 1853. To any further invasion of the Burmese empire Dalhousie was firmly opposed, being content to “consolidate” the Company’s possessions by uniting Arakan to Tenasserim. By his wise policy he pacified the new province, placing Colonel Arthur Phayre in sole charge of it, personally visiting it, and establishing a complete system of telegraphs and communications.

One more addition to the empire was made through conquest. The arrogant Burmese court at Ava was bound by the treaty of Yandabo, 1826, to protect British ships in Burmese waters, but the outrageous behavior of the governor of Rangoon towards the captains of the “Monarch” and “Champion” was ignored by the king. Dalhousie followed Lord Wellesley’s principle that “an insult offered to the British flag at the mouth of the Ganges should be responded to as quickly and fully as an insult offered at the mouth of the Thames”; however, wanting to avoid the costs of war, he sought to resolve the conflict through diplomacy. When that didn't work, he made strong preparations for a campaign to begin in the fall, focusing on making sure there were enough rations, boat transport, and medical supplies, resolving differences between the military groups from Bengal and Madras, as well as between the military and naval forces involved, and consulting with General Godwin, whom he appointed to lead the expedition. Martaban was captured on April 5, 1852, followed by Rangoon and Bassein soon after. Since the court of Ava showed no signs of giving in, the second campaign began in October, and after capturing Prome and Pegu, the annexation of Pegu province was announced in a proclamation dated December 20, 1853. Dalhousie strongly opposed any further invasion of the Burmese empire, preferring to “consolidate” the Company’s territories by linking Arakan with Tenasserim. Through his wise policies, he stabilized the new province, appointing Colonel Arthur Phayre as its sole administrator, visiting it personally, and setting up a complete system of telegraphs and communications.

These military operations added force to the conviction which Dalhousie had formed of the need of consolidating the Company’s ill-knit possessions, and as a step in that direction he decided to apply the doctrine of “lapse,” and annex any Hindu native states, created or revived by the grants of the British government, in which there was a failure of male lineal descendants, reserving for consideration the policy of permitting adoptions in other Hindu chiefships tributary and subordinate to the British government as paramount. Under the first head he recommended the annexation of Satara in January 1849, of Jaitpur and Sambalpur in the same year, and of Jhansi and Nagpur in 1853. In these cases his action was approved by the home authorities, but his proposal to annex Karauli in 1849 was disallowed, while Baghat and the petty estate of Udaipur, which he had annexed in 1851 and 1852 respectively, were afterwards restored to native rule.

These military operations strengthened Dalhousie's belief in the need to consolidate the Company’s poorly connected territories. As a move in that direction, he decided to implement the doctrine of “lapse,” which allowed for the annexation of any Hindu native states, created or revived by the grants of the British government, that had no male heirs. He also considered the policy of allowing adoptions in other Hindu chiefships that were tributary and subordinate to the British government as paramount. Under this doctrine, he recommended the annexation of Satara in January 1849, followed by Jaitpur and Sambalpur in the same year, and then Jhansi and Nagpur in 1853. His actions were approved by the home authorities in these cases, but his proposal to annex Karauli in 1849 was rejected. Additionally, Baghat and the small estate of Udaipur, which he had annexed in 1851 and 1852 respectively, were later returned to native rule.

766

766

Other measures with the same object were carried out in the Company’s own territories. Bengal, too long ruled by the governor-general or his delegate, was placed under a separate lieutenant-governor in May 1854; a department of public works was established in each presidency, and engineering colleges were provided. An imperial system of telegraphs followed; the first link of railway communication was completed in 1855; well-considered plans mapped out the course of other lines and their method of administration; the Ganges canal, which then exceeded “all the irrigation lines of Lombardy and Egypt together,” was completed; and despite the cost of wars in the Punjab and Burma, liberal provision was made for metalled roads and bridges. The useless military boards were swept away; selection took the place of seniority in the higher commands; an army clothing and a stud department were created, and the medical service underwent complete reorganization.

Other initiatives with the same goal were implemented in the Company's own regions. Bengal, which had been under the control of the governor-general or his representative for too long, was assigned a separate lieutenant-governor in May 1854; a public works department was established in each presidency, and engineering colleges were set up. An imperial telegraph system was introduced; the first railway link was completed in 1855; well-thought-out plans outlined the routes of other lines and their management methods; the Ganges canal, which then surpassed "all the irrigation systems of Lombardy and Egypt combined," was finished; and despite the expenses from wars in the Punjab and Burma, significant resources were allocated for paved roads and bridges. The ineffective military boards were eliminated; merit replaced seniority in higher ranks; an army clothing and supplies department was created, and the medical service was completely reorganized.

“Unity of authority coupled with direct responsibility” was the keynote of his policy. In nine masterly minutes he suggested means for strengthening the Company’s European forces, calling attention to the dangers that threatened the English community, “a handful of scattered strangers”; but beyond the additional powers of recruitment which at his entreaty were granted in the last charter act of 1853, his proposals were shelved by the home authorities, who scented no danger and wished to avoid expense. In his administration Dalhousie vigorously asserted the control of the civil government over military affairs, and when Sir Charles Napier ordered certain allowances, given as compensation for the dearness of provisions, to be granted to the sepoys on a system which had not been sanctioned from headquarters, and threatened to repeat the offence, the governor-general found it necessary to administer such a rebuke that the hot-headed soldier resigned his command.

“Unity of authority along with direct responsibility” was the main focus of his policy. In just nine impressive minutes, he proposed ways to strengthen the Company's European forces, highlighting the risks facing the English community, “a small group of scattered outsiders.” However, apart from the extra recruitment powers that were granted at his request in the last charter act of 1853, his suggestions were ignored by the home authorities, who saw no threat and wanted to cut costs. During his administration, Dalhousie firmly established the civil government’s control over military matters. When Sir Charles Napier ordered certain allowances to be given to the sepoys as compensation for the high cost of provisions, based on a system that had not been approved from the top, and threatened to do it again, the governor-general felt it necessary to give such a strong reprimand that the hot-headed soldier resigned from his command.

Dalhousie’s reforms were not confined to the departments of public works and military affairs. He created an imperial system of post-offices, reducing the rates of carrying letters and introducing postage stamps. To him India owes the first department of public instruction; it was he who placed the gaols under proper inspection, abolishing the practice of branding convicts; put down the crime of meriahs or human sacrifices; freed converts to other religions from the loss of their civil rights; inaugurated the system of administrative reports; and enlarged and dignified the legislative council of India. His wide interest in everything that concerned the welfare of the country was shown in the encouragement he gave to the culture of tea, in his protection of forests, in the preservation of ancient and historic monuments. With the object of improving civil administration, he closed the useless college in Calcutta for the education of young civilians, establishing in its place a proper system of training them in mufasal stations, and subjecting them to departmental examinations. He was equally careful of the well-being of the European soldier, providing him with healthy recreations and public gardens. To the civil service he gave improved leave and pension rules, while he purified its moral by forbidding all share in trading concerns, by vigorously punishing insolvents, and by his personal example of careful selection in the matter of patronage. As a comprehensive view of the constitution of the Indian government, dealing with the functions of its various members and the different parts of the official machinery, nothing could be more masterly than his minute of the 13th of October 1852. Indeed no governor-general ever penned a larger number of weighty papers dealing with public affairs in India. Even after laying down office and while on his way home, he forced himself, ill as he was, to review his own administration in a document of such importance that the House of Commons gave orders for its being printed (Blue Book 245 of 1856).

Dalhousie’s reforms went beyond just public works and military matters. He established an imperial postal system, lowered the costs of sending letters, and introduced postage stamps. India was the first to have a public education department thanks to him; he made sure prisons were properly inspected, got rid of branding for convicts, eliminated the crime of meriahs or human sacrifices, guaranteed that converts to other religions would keep their civil rights, started the practice of administrative reports, and expanded and respected the legislative council of India. His broad interest in the nation’s welfare was evident in his support for tea cultivation, his protection of forests, and the preservation of historical monuments. To enhance civil administration, he shut down the ineffective college in Calcutta that was meant to train young civilians and replaced it with a solid training system in mufasal stations, requiring them to take departmental exams. He also prioritized the well-being of European soldiers by providing healthy recreational activities and public parks. To the civil service, he introduced better leave and pension rules, while improving its moral standards by prohibiting any involvement in trading activities, strictly punishing insolvents, and setting a personal example of careful patronage. As for a comprehensive overview of the Indian government's structure, addressing the roles of its various members and different parts of the official system, nothing was more expertly written than his minute from October 13, 1852. In fact, no governor-general ever produced as many significant documents concerning public affairs in India. Even after stepping down from office and while heading home, he pushed himself, despite being ill, to review his own administration in a document of such significance that the House of Commons ordered it to be printed (Blue Book 245 of 1856).

His foreign policy was guided by a desire to recognize the “independence” of the larger native states, and to avoid extending the political relations of his government with foreign powers outside India. Pressed to intervene in Hyderabad, he refused to do so, laying down the doctrine that interference was only justified “if the administration of native princes tends unquestionably to the injury of the subjects or of the allies of the British government.” Protection in his view carried no right of interference in the affairs of what he called “independent” states. In this spirit he negotiated in 1853 a treaty with the nizam, which provided funds for the maintenance of the contingent kept up by the British in support of that prince’s authority, by the assignment of the Berars in lieu of annual payments of the cost and large outstanding arrears. “The Berar treaty,” he told Sir Charles Wood, “is more likely to keep the nizam on his throne than anything that has happened for fifty years to him,” while at the same time the control thus acquired over a strip of territory intervening between Bombay and Nagpur promoted his policy of consolidation and his schemes of railway extension. The same spirit induced him to tolerate a war of succession in Bahawalpur, so long as the contending candidates did not violate British territory. This reluctance to increase his responsibilities further caused him to refrain from punishing Dost Mahommed for the part he had taken in the Sikh War, and resolutely to refuse to enter upon any negotiations until the amir himself came forward. Then he steered a middle course between the proposals of his own agent, Herbert Edwardes, who advocated an offensive alliance, and those of John Lawrence, who would have avoided any sort of engagement. He himself drafted the short treaty of peace and friendship which Lawrence signed in 1855, that officer receiving in 1856 the order of K.C.B, in acknowledgment of his services in the matter. While, however, Dalhousie was content with a mutual engagement with the Afghan chief, binding each party to respect the territories of the other, he saw that a larger measure of interference was needed in Baluchistan, and with the khan of Kalat he authorized Major Jacob to negotiate a treaty of subordinate co-operation on the 14th of May 1854. The khan was guaranteed an annual subsidy of Rs. 50,000, in return for the treaty which “bound him to us wholly and exclusively.” To this the home authorities demurred, but the engagement was duly ratified, and the subsidy was largely increased by Dalhousie’s successors. On the other hand, he insisted on leaving all matters concerning Persia and Central Asia to the decision of the queen’s advisers. The frontier tribesmen it was obviously necessary to coerce into good behaviour after the annexation of the Punjab. “The hillmen,” he wrote, “regard the plains as their food and prey,” and the Afridis, Mohmands, Black Mountain tribes, Waziris and others had to be taught that their new neighbours would not tolerate outrages. But he proclaimed to one and all his desire for peace, and urged upon them the duty of tribal responsibility.

His foreign policy was driven by a desire to acknowledge the “independence” of larger native states and to avoid extending his government’s political relations with foreign powers outside of India. When pressed to intervene in Hyderabad, he refused, stating that interference was only justified “if the administration of native princes clearly harms the subjects or allies of the British government.” In his view, protection did not grant the right to interfere in what he termed “independent” states' affairs. In this spirit, he negotiated a treaty with the nizam in 1853, which provided funds for maintaining the contingent that supported that prince’s authority, by assigning the Berars instead of making annual payments for the cost and large outstanding arrears. “The Berar treaty,” he told Sir Charles Wood, “is more likely to keep the nizam on his throne than anything that has happened to him in fifty years,” while the control gained over a strip of territory between Bombay and Nagpur furthered his goals of consolidation and railway expansion. The same mindset led him to tolerate a succession war in Bahawalpur, as long as the rivals didn’t violate British territory. His reluctance to take on more responsibilities also led him to avoid punishing Dost Mahommed for his role in the Sikh War and to refuse negotiations until the amir himself approached him. He then took a balanced approach between his agent, Herbert Edwardes, who advocated for an offensive alliance, and John Lawrence, who wanted to avoid any kind of engagement. He personally drafted a short treaty of peace and friendship that Lawrence signed in 1855, with Lawrence receiving the K.C.B order in 1856 for his contributions to the matter. While Dalhousie was satisfied with a mutual agreement with the Afghan chief that bound both parties to respect each other’s territories, he recognized that more intervention was necessary in Baluchistan. He authorized Major Jacob to negotiate a treaty of subordinate cooperation with the khan of Kalat on May 14, 1854. The khan was guaranteed an annual subsidy of Rs. 50,000, in exchange for a treaty that “binds him to us entirely.” The home authorities had some objections to this, but the agreement was ratified, and Dalhousie’s successors increased the subsidy significantly. Meanwhile, he insisted on leaving decisions regarding Persia and Central Asia to the judgement of the queen’s advisers. It was clearly necessary to compel the frontier tribes to behave after the annexation of the Punjab. “The hillmen,” he wrote, “see the plains as their food and prey,” and the Afridis, Mohmands, Black Mountain tribes, Waziris, and others had to learn that their new neighbors wouldn’t tolerate outrages. However, he made it clear to everyone that he desired peace and urged them to embrace the responsibility of their tribes.

The settlement of the Oudh question was reserved to the last. The home authorities had begged Dalhousie to prolong his tenure of office during the Crimean War, but the difficulties of the problem no less than complications elsewhere had induced him to delay operations. In 1854 he appointed Outram as resident at the court of Lucknow, directing him to submit a report on the condition of the province. This was furnished in March 1855. But though the state of disorder and misrule revealed by it called for prompt remedy, Dalhousie, looking at the treaty of 1801, considered that he was bound to proceed in the matter of reform with the king’s consent. He proposed, therefore, to demand a transfer to the Company of the entire administration, the king merely retaining his royal rank, certain privileges in the courts, and a liberal allowance. If he should refuse this arrangement, a general rising was almost certain to follow, and then the British government would of necessity intervene on its own terms. On the 21st of November 1855 the court of directors instructed Dalhousie to assume the powers essential to the permanence of good government in Oudh, and to give the king no option unless he was sure that his majesty would surrender the administration rather than risk a revolution. Dalhousie was in wretched health and on the eve of retirement when the belated orders reached him; but he at once laid down instructions for Outram in every detail, moved up troops, and elaborated a scheme of government with particular orders as to conciliating local opinion. The king refused to sign the treaty put before 767 him, and a proclamation annexing the province was therefore issued on the 13th of February 1856.

The resolution of the Oudh issue was saved for last. The home authorities had asked Dalhousie to extend his time in office during the Crimean War, but the complexity of the situation, along with other complications, led him to postpone action. In 1854, he appointed Outram as the resident at the court of Lucknow, instructing him to give a report on the situation in the province. This report was submitted in March 1855. However, despite the chaos and mismanagement it exposed calling for immediate action, Dalhousie believed that according to the treaty of 1801, he had to proceed with reforms only with the king's approval. Therefore, he planned to demand that the Company take over the entire administration, with the king keeping his royal status, certain privileges in the courts, and a generous allowance. If the king refused this proposal, a widespread uprising was nearly guaranteed, and the British government would have no choice but to step in on its own terms. On November 21, 1855, the court of directors ordered Dalhousie to take the necessary powers to ensure stable governance in Oudh and to give the king no choice unless he was confident that his majesty would relinquish control rather than risk a revolution. Dalhousie was in poor health and on the verge of retirement when the delayed orders arrived; however, he immediately set detailed instructions for Outram, mobilized troops, and developed a governance plan with specific directives for winning over local opinion. The king refused to sign the treaty presented to him, leading to the issuance of a proclamation annexing the province on February 13, 1856.

Only one important matter now remained to him before quitting office. The insurrection of the half-civilized Kolarian Santals of Bengal against the extortions of landlords and money-lenders had been severely repressed, but the causes of the insurrection had still to be reviewed and a remedy provided. By removing the tract of country from the ordinary regulations, enforcing the residence of British officers there, and employing the Santal headmen in a local police, he ensured a system of administration which afterwards proved eminently successful.

Only one important issue remained for him before leaving office. The uprising of the semi-civilized Kolarian Santals in Bengal against the exploitation by landlords and moneylenders had been harshly suppressed, but the reasons behind the uprising still needed to be examined and addressed. By exempting the area from standard regulations, requiring British officers to live there, and involving the Santal leaders in local law enforcement, he established a system of governance that later turned out to be very effective.

At length, after seven years of strenuous labour, Dalhousie, on the 6th of March 1856, set sail for England on board the Company’s “Firoze,” an object of general sympathy and not less general respect. At Alexandria he was carried by H.M.S. “Caradoc” to Malta, and thence by the “Tribune” to Spithead, which he reached on the 13th of May. His return had been eagerly looked for by statesmen who hoped that he would resume his public career, by the Company which voted him an annual pension of £5000, by public bodies which showered upon him every mark of respect, and by the queen who earnestly prayed for the “blessing of restored health and strength.” That blessing was not to be his. He lingered on, seeking sunshine in Malta and medical treatment at Malvern, Edinburgh and other places in vain obedience to his doctors. The outbreak of the mutiny led to bitter attacks at home upon his policy, and to strange misrepresentation of his public acts, while on the other hand John Lawrence invoked his counsel and influence, and those who really knew his work in India cried out, “Oh, for a dictator,” and his return “for one hour!” To all these cries he turned a deaf ear, refusing to embarrass those who were responsible by any expressions of opinion, declining to undertake his own defence or to assist in his vindication through the public press, and by his last directions sealing up his private journal and papers of personal interest against publication until fifty years after his death. On the 9th of August 1859 his youngest daughter, Edith, was married at Dalhousie Castle to Sir James Fergusson, Bart. In the same castle Dalhousie died on the 19th of December 1860; he was buried in the old churchyard of Cockpen.

After seven years of hard work, Dalhousie set sail for England on March 6, 1856, aboard the Company’s “Firoze,” receiving general sympathy and respect. In Alexandria, he was transported by H.M.S. “Caradoc” to Malta, and then by the “Tribune” to Spithead, arriving on May 13. His return was highly anticipated by politicians hoping he would return to public life, by the Company that granted him a yearly pension of £5000, by various public organizations that showed him great respect, and by the queen who fervently wished for his “restored health and strength.” Unfortunately, that blessing wasn’t meant for him. He struggled to find sunlight in Malta and sought medical treatment in Malvern, Edinburgh, and other places, obediently following his doctors' advice. The outbreak of the mutiny led to harsh criticism of his policies back home and distorted representations of his public actions, while John Lawrence sought his advice and influence, and those who truly understood his work in India lamented, “Oh, for a dictator,” and wished for his return “for just one hour!” He ignored these cries, refusing to burden those in charge with his opinions, declining to defend himself or help clear his name through the press, and in his final wishes, he sealed his private journal and personal papers to prevent publication for fifty years after his death. On August 9, 1859, his youngest daughter, Edith, married Sir James Fergusson, Bart, at Dalhousie Castle. Dalhousie passed away in the same castle on December 19, 1860, and was buried in the old churchyard of Cockpen.

Dalhousie’s family consisted of two daughters, and the marquessate became extinct at his death.

Dalhousie's family had two daughters, and the marquessate ended when he died.

The detailed events of the period will be found in Sir William Lee-Warner’s Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie, K.T.; Sir E. Arnold’s Dalhousie’s Administration of British India; Sir C. Jackson’s Vindication of Dalhousie’s Indian Administration; Sir W. W. Hunter’s Dalhousie; Capt. L. J. Trotter’s Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie; the duke of Argyll’s India under Dalhousie and Canning; Broughton MSS. (British Museum); and parliamentary papers.

The detailed events of the period can be found in Sir William Lee-Warner’s Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie, K.T.; Sir E. Arnold’s Dalhousie’s Administration of British India; Sir C. Jackson’s Vindication of Dalhousie’s Indian Administration; Sir W. W. Hunter’s Dalhousie; Capt. L. J. Trotter’s Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie; the duke of Argyll’s India under Dalhousie and Canning; Broughton MSS. (British Museum); and parliamentary papers.

(W. L.-W.)

DALHOUSIE, FOX MAULE RAMSAY, 11th Earl ot (1801-1874), was the eldest son of William Ramsay Maule, 1st Baron Panmure (1771-1852), and a grandson of George, 8th earl of Dalhousie. Born on the 22nd of April 1801 and christened Fox as a compliment to the great Whig, he served for a term in the army, and then in 1835 entered the House of Commons as member for Perthshire. In Lord Melbourne’s ministry (1835-1841) Maule was under-secretary for home affairs, and under Lord John Russell he was secretary-at-war from July 1846 to January 1852, when for two or three weeks he was president of the board of control. In April 1852 he became the 2nd Baron Panmure, and early in 1855 he joined Lord Palmerston’s cabinet, filling the new office of secretary of state for war. Panmure held this office until February 1858, being at the war office during the concluding period of the Crimean War and having to meet a good deal of criticism, some of which was justified and some of which was not. In December 1860 he succeeded his kinsman, the marquess of Dalhousie, as 11th earl of Dalhousie, and he died childless on the 6th of July 1874. Always interested in church matters, Dalhousie was a prominent supporter of the Free Church of Scotland after the disruption of 1843. On his death the barony became extinct, but his earldom passed to his cousin, George Ramsay (1806-1880), an admiral who, in 1875, was created a peer of the United Kingdom as Baron Ramsay. George’s grandson, Arthur George Maule Ramsay (b. 1878), became the 14th earl in 1887.

DALHOUSIE, FOX MAULE RAMSAY, 11th Earl (1801-1874), was the oldest son of William Ramsay Maule, 1st Baron Panmure (1771-1852), and the grandson of George, 8th Earl of Dalhousie. He was born on April 22, 1801, and named Fox in honor of the great Whig. He served in the army for a time and then entered the House of Commons as the representative for Perthshire in 1835. During Lord Melbourne’s ministry (1835-1841), Maule was the under-secretary for home affairs, and under Lord John Russell, he served as secretary-at-war from July 1846 to January 1852, and briefly as president of the board of control for two or three weeks. In April 1852, he became the 2nd Baron Panmure, and early in 1855, he joined Lord Palmerston’s cabinet, taking on the new role of secretary of state for war. Panmure held this position until February 1858, overseeing the war office during the final stages of the Crimean War and facing a fair amount of criticism, some of which was warranted and some was not. In December 1860, he succeeded his relative, the marquess of Dalhousie, becoming the 11th Earl of Dalhousie, and he passed away childless on July 6, 1874. Always interested in church affairs, Dalhousie was a leading supporter of the Free Church of Scotland after the disruption of 1843. Upon his death, the barony became extinct, but his earldom was inherited by his cousin, George Ramsay (1806-1880), an admiral who was made a peer of the United Kingdom as Baron Ramsay in 1875. George’s grandson, Arthur George Maule Ramsay (b. 1878), became the 14th earl in 1887.

See the Panmure Papers, a selection from Panmure’s correspondence, edited in two volumes (1908), by Sir G. Douglas, Bart., and Sir G. D. Ramsay. These numerous letters throw much light on the concluding stage of the Crimean War.

See the Panmure Papers, a collection of Panmure’s letters, edited in two volumes (1908) by Sir G. Douglas, Bart., and Sir G. D. Ramsay. These many letters provide a lot of insight into the final phase of the Crimean War.


DALIN, OLOF VON (1708-1763), Swedish poet, was born on the 29th of August 1708 in the parish of Vinberg in Halland, where his father was the minister. He was nearly related to Rydelius, the philosophical bishop of Lund, and he was sent at a very early age to be instructed by him, Linnaeus being one of his fellow-pupils. While studying at Lund, Dalin had visited Stockholm in the year 1723, and in 1726 entered one of the public offices there. Under the patronage of Baron Rålamb he rapidly rose to preferment, and his skill and intelligence won him golden opinions. In 1733 he started the weekly Svenska Argus, on the model of Addison’s Spectator, writing anonymously till 1736. His next work was Tankar öfver Critiquer (Thoughts about Critics, 1736). With the avowed purpose of enlarging the horizon of his cultivation and tastes, Dalin set off, in company with his pupil, Baron Rålamb’s son, on a tour through Germany and France, in 1739-1740. On his return the shifting of political life at home caused him to write his famous satiric allegories of The Story of the Horse and Aprilverk (1738), which were very popular and provoked countless imitations. His didactic epos of Svenska Friheten (Swedish Liberty) appeared in 1742. Hitherto Addison and Pope had been his models; in this work he draws his inspiration from Thomson, whose poem of Liberty it emulated. On the accession of Adolphus Freduck in 1751 Dalin received the post of tutor to the crown prince, afterwards Gustavus III. He had enjoyed the confidence of Queen Louisa Ulrika, sister of Frederick the Great of Germany, while she was crown princess, and she now made him secretary of the Swedish academy of literature, founded by her in 1753. His position at court involved him in the queen’s political intrigues, and separated him to a vexatious degree from the studies in which he had hitherto been absorbed. He held the post of tutor to the crown prince until 1756, when he was arrested on suspicion of having taken part in the attempted coup d’état of that year, and was tried for his life before the diet. He was acquitted, but was forbidden on any pretence to show himself at court. This period of exile, which lasted until 1761, Dalin spent in the preparation of the third volume of his great historical work, the Svea Rikes historia (History of the Swedish Kingdom), which came down to the death of Charles IX. in 1611. The first two volumes appeared in 1746-1750; the third, in two parts, in 1760-1762. Dalin had been ennobled in 1751, and made privy councillor in 1753; and now, in 1761, he once more took his place at court. During his exile, however, his spirit and his health had been broken; in a fit of panic he had destroyed some packets of his best unpublished works and this he constantly brooded over. On the 12th of August 1763 he died at his house in Drottningholm. In the year 1767 his writings in belles lettres were issued in six volumes, edited by J. C. Bökman, his half-brother. Amid an enormous mass of occasional verses, anagrams, epigrams, impromptus and the like, his satires and serious poems were almost buried. But some of these former, even, are found to be songs of remarkable grace and delicacy, and many display a love of natural scenery and a knowledge of its forms truly remarkable in that artificial age. His dramas also are of interest, particularly his admirable comedy of Den afvundsjuke (The Envious Man, 1738); he also wrote a tragedy, Brynilda (1739), and a pastoral in three scenes on King Adolphus Frederick’s return from Finland. During the early part of his life he was universally admitted to be facile princeps among the Swedish poets of his time.

DALIN, OLOF VON (1708-1763), Swedish poet, was born on August 29, 1708, in the parish of Vinberg in Halland, where his father was the minister. He was closely related to Rydelius, the philosophical bishop of Lund, and was sent at a very young age to study with him, with Linnaeus as one of his classmates. While studying at Lund, Dalin visited Stockholm in 1723 and entered a public office there in 1726. Under Baron Rålamb's patronage, he quickly advanced in his career, and his talent and intellect earned him widespread praise. In 1733, he started the weekly Svenska Argus, modeled after Addison’s Spectator, writing anonymously until 1736. His next work was Tankar öfver Critiquer (Thoughts about Critics, 1736). With the intention of expanding his knowledge and tastes, Dalin embarked on a tour through Germany and France in 1739-1740, accompanied by Baron Rålamb’s son, one of his pupils. Upon his return, the changing political landscape inspired him to write his famous satirical allegories The Story of the Horse and Aprilverk (1738), which became quite popular and led to many imitations. His didactic epic Svenska Friheten (Swedish Liberty) was published in 1742. Until then, Addison and Pope had been his models; in this work, he drew inspiration from Thomson, emulating his poem Liberty. When Adolphus Frederick came to power in 1751, Dalin was appointed tutor to the crown prince, who later became Gustavus III. He had earned the trust of Queen Louisa Ulrika, sister of Frederick the Great of Germany, while she was crown princess, and she appointed him secretary of the Swedish Academy of Literature, which she founded in 1753. His position at court embroiled him in the queen’s political dealings, distancing him from the studies that had previously occupied him. He remained tutor to the crown prince until 1756, when he was arrested under suspicion of involvement in the attempted coup d’état of that year and faced a trial before the diet. He was acquitted, but forbidden to appear at court on any grounds. This period of exile, which lasted until 1761, was spent preparing the third volume of his significant historical work, Svea Rikes historia (History of the Swedish Kingdom), which covered events up to the death of Charles IX in 1611. The first two volumes were published in 1746-1750, with the third volume released in two parts in 1760-1762. Dalin was ennobled in 1751 and became a privy councillor in 1753; in 1761, he returned to court. However, during his exile, his spirit and health deteriorated; in a moment of panic, he destroyed some packets containing his best unpublished works, a decision he constantly regretted. On August 12, 1763, he died at his home in Drottningholm. In 1767, his writings in belles lettres were published in six volumes, edited by J. C. Bökman, his half-brother. Among a huge collection of occasional verses, anagrams, epigrams, and impromptus, his satires and serious poems were almost overlooked. Yet some of these earlier works are marked by remarkable grace and delicacy, and many reflect a deep appreciation of natural scenery and an exceptional understanding of its forms, quite distinct for that artificial era. His dramas are also noteworthy, especially his excellent comedy Den afvundsjuke (The Envious Man, 1738); he also wrote a tragedy, Brynilda (1739), and a pastoral in three scenes about King Adolphus Frederick’s return from Finland. In the early part of his life, he was widely recognized as the facile princeps among Swedish poets of his time.

See also K. Warburg, “Olof von Dalin,” in the Handlingar (vol. lix., 1884) of the Swedish Academy. A selection of his works was edited by E. V. Lindblad (Örebro, 1872).

See also K. Warburg, “Olof von Dalin,” in the Handlingar (vol. lix., 1884) of the Swedish Academy. A selection of his works was edited by E. V. Lindblad (Örebro, 1872).


DALKEITH, a municipal and police burgh of Edinburghshire, Scotland, lying between the North and South Esk, 7½ m. S.E. 768 of Edinburgh, by the North British railway. Pop. (1891) 7035; (1901) 6812. It is an important agricultural centre, and has every week one of the largest grain-markets in Scotland. Besides milling, brewing and tanning, the chief industries are the making of carpets, brushes and bricks, and iron and brass founding. Near Eskbank, a handsome residential quarter with a railway station, coal-mining is carried on. Market-gardening, owing to the proximity of the capital, flourishes. The parish church—an old Gothic edifice, which was originally the Castle chapel, and was restored in 1852—the municipal buildings, corn exchange, Foresters’ hall and Newmills hospital are among the principal public buildings. Dalkeith was the birthplace of Professor Peter Guthrie Tait, the mathematician (1831-1901). Dalkeith Palace, a seat of the duke of Buccleuch, was designed by Sir John Vanbrugh in 1700 for the widow of the duke of Monmouth, countess of Buccleuch in her own right. It occupies the site of a castle which belonged first to the Grahams and afterwards to the Douglases, and was sold in 1642 by William, seventh or eighth earl of Morton, to Francis, second earl of Buccleuch, for the purpose of raising money to assist Charles I. in the Civil War. The palace has been the residence of several sovereigns during their visits to Edinburgh, among them George IV. in 1822, Queen Victoria in 1842, and Edward VII. in 1903. The picture gallery possesses important examples of the Old Masters; the gardens are renowned for their fruit and flowers; and the beautiful park of over 1000 acres—containing a remnant of the Caledonian Forest, with oaks, beeches and ashes of great girth and height—is watered by the North and South Esk, which unite before they leave the policy. About 1 m. south is Newbattle Abbey, the seat of the marquess of Lothian, delightfully situated on the South Esk. It is built on the site of an abbey founded by David I., the ancient crypt being incorporated in the mansion. The library contains many valuable books and illuminated MSS., and excellent pictures and carvings. In the park are several remarkable trees, among them one of the largest beeches in the United Kingdom. Two miles still farther south lies Cockpen, immortalized by the Baroness Nairne’s humorous song “The Laird of Cockpen,” and Dalhousie Castle, partly ancient and partly modern, which gives a title to the earls of Dalhousie. About 6 m. south-east of Dalkeith are Borthwick and Crichton castles, 1 m. apart, both now in ruins. Queen Mary spent three weeks in Borthwick Castle, as in durance vile, after her marriage with Bothwell, and fled from it to Dunbar in the guise of a page. The castle, which is a double tower, was besieged by Cromwell, and the marks of his cannon-balls are still visible. In the manse of the parish of Borthwick, William Robertson, the historian, was born in 1721. About 4 m. west of Dalkeith is the village of Burdiehouse, the limestone quarries of which are famous for fossils. The name is said to be a corruption of Bordeaux House, which was bestowed on it by Queen Mary’s French servants, who lived here when their mistress resided at Craigmillar.

DALKEITH, is a town and police burgh in Edinburghshire, Scotland, located between the North and South Esk, 7½ miles southeast of Edinburgh, near the North British railway. The population was 7,035 in 1891 and 6,812 in 1901. It serves as an important agricultural hub and has one of the largest grain markets in Scotland each week. In addition to milling, brewing, and tanning, the main industries include making carpets, brushes, bricks, and iron and brass founding. Near Eskbank, a nice residential area with a railway station, coal mining takes place. Market gardening thrives due to its close proximity to the capital. The parish church, an old Gothic building that was originally the chapel of the castle and restored in 1852, along with the municipal buildings, corn exchange, Foresters’ hall, and Newmills hospital, are among the key public structures. Dalkeith is notable as the birthplace of Professor Peter Guthrie Tait, the mathematician (1831-1901). Dalkeith Palace, the residence of the duke of Buccleuch, was designed by Sir John Vanbrugh in 1700 for the widow of the duke of Monmouth, the countess of Buccleuch in her own right. It stands on the site of a castle that was initially owned by the Grahams and later by the Douglases, which was sold in 1642 by William, the seventh or eighth earl of Morton, to Francis, the second earl of Buccleuch, to help raise funds for Charles I during the Civil War. The palace has hosted several monarchs during their visits to Edinburgh, including George IV in 1822, Queen Victoria in 1842, and Edward VII in 1903. The picture gallery holds significant works by the Old Masters; the gardens are famous for their fruit and flowers; and the lovely park spans over 1,000 acres, featuring a remnant of the Caledonian Forest, with large and tall oaks, beeches, and ashes, watered by the North and South Esk, which join before exiting the estate. About 1 mile south is Newbattle Abbey, the residence of the marquess of Lothian, beautifully situated on the South Esk. It was built on the site of an abbey established by David I., incorporating the ancient crypt into the mansion. The library is home to many valuable books and illuminated manuscripts, as well as fine paintings and carvings. The park features several remarkable trees, including one of the largest beeches in the UK. Two miles further south is Cockpen, famous for the Baroness Nairne’s amusing song “The Laird of Cockpen,” and Dalhousie Castle, which is partially ancient and partially modern, providing a title for the earls of Dalhousie. Approximately 6 miles southeast of Dalkeith are Borthwick and Crichton castles, 1 mile apart, both now in ruins. Queen Mary spent three weeks in Borthwick Castle, essentially imprisoned after her marriage to Bothwell, and escaped from it to Dunbar disguised as a page. The castle, which features a double tower, was besieged by Cromwell, and the cannonball marks are still visible today. In the Borthwick parish manse, William Robertson, the historian, was born in 1721. About 4 miles west of Dalkeith is the village of Burdiehouse, known for its limestone quarries rich in fossils. The name is thought to be a corruption of Bordeaux House, granted to it by Queen Mary’s French servants, who lived here when their mistress was at Craigmillar.


DALKEY, a small port and watering-place of Co. Dublin, Ireland, in the south parliamentary division; 9 m. S.E. of Dublin by the Dublin & South-Eastern railway. Pop. of urban district (1901), 3398. It is pleasantly situated on and about Sorrento Point, the southern horn of Dublin Bay. Dalkey Island, lying off the town, has an ancient ruined chapel, of the history of which nothing is certainly known, and a disused battery, which protected the harbour, a landing-place of some former importance. A castle in the town, of the 15th century, is restored to use as offices for the urban district council. There are also ruins of an old church, the dedication of which, like the island chapel, is ascribed to one St Begnet, perhaps a diminutive form of Bega, but the identity is not clear. Until the close of the 18th century Dalkey was notorious for the burlesque election of a “king,” a mock ceremony which became invested with a certain political importance.

DALKEY, is a small port and resort in County Dublin, Ireland, located in the southern parliamentary division; 9 miles southeast of Dublin via the Dublin & South-Eastern railway. The population of the urban district was 3,398 in 1901. It’s nicely situated on and around Sorrento Point, the southern tip of Dublin Bay. Dalkey Island, just off the town, features an ancient ruined chapel, about which little is definitively known, and a decommissioned battery that once protected the harbor, a landing spot of some past significance. There’s a 15th-century castle in town that has been restored for use as offices for the urban district council. Additionally, there are ruins of an old church, dedicated to St. Begnet, which may be a shorter version of Bega, though that’s uncertain. Up until the end of the 18th century, Dalkey was infamous for the parody election of a “king,” a mock ceremony that gained a degree of political significance.


DALLAS, ALEXANDER JAMES (1759-1817), American statesman and financier, was born on the island of Jamaica, West Indies, on the 21st of June 1759, the son of Dr Robert C. Dallas (d. 1774), a Scottish physician then practising there. Dr Dallas soon returned to England with his family, and Alexander was educated at Edinburgh and Westminster. He studied law for a time in the Inner Temple, and in 1780 returned to Jamaica. There he met the younger Lewis Hallam (1738-1808), a pioneer American theatrical manager and actor, who induced him to remove to the United States, and in 1783 he settled in Philadelphia, where he at once took the oath of allegiance to the United States, was admitted to practise law in 1785, and rapidly attained a prominent position at the bar. He was interested in the theatrical projects of Hallam, for whom he wrote several dramatic compositions, and from 1787 to 1789 he edited The Columbian Magazine. From 1791 to 1801 he was secretary of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Partly owing to his publication of an able pamphlet against the Jay treaty in 1795, he soon acquired a position of much influence in the Democratic-Republican party in the state. During the Whisky Insurrection he was paymaster-general of the state militia. His official position as secretary did not entirely prevent him from continuing his private law practice, and, with Jared Ingersoll, he was the counsel of Senator William Blount in his impeachment trial. Dallas was United States attorney for the eastern district of Pennsylvania from 1801 until 1814, a period marked by bitter struggles between the Democratic-Republican factions in the state, in which he took a leading part in alliance with Governor Thomas M’Kean and Albert Gallatin, and in opposition to the radical factions led by Michael Leib (1759-1822) and William Duane (1760-1835), of the Aurora. The quarrel led in 1805 to the M’Kean party seeking Federalist support. By such an alliance, largely due to the political ingenuity of Dallas, M’Kean was re-elected. In October 1814 President Madison appointed Dallas secretary of the treasury, to succeed George W. Campbell (1768-1848), whose brief and disastrous term had been marked by wholesale bank suspensions, and an enormous depreciation of state and national bank notes. The appointment itself inspired confidence, and Dallas’s prompt measures still further relieved the situation. He first issued new interest-bearing treasury notes of small denominations, and in addition proposed the re-establishment of a national bank, by which means he expected to increase the stability and uniformity of the circulating medium, and furnish the government with a powerful engine in the upholding of its credit. In spite of his already onerous duties, Dallas, with characteristic energy, served also as secretary of war ad interim from March to August 1815, and in this capacity successfully reorganized the army on a peace footing. Although peace brought a more favourable condition of the money market, Dallas’s attempt to fund the treasury notes on a satisfactory basis was unsuccessful, but a bill, reported by Calhoun, as chairman of the committee on national currency, for the establishment of a national bank, became law on the 10th of April 1816. Meanwhile (12th of February 1816) Dallas, in a notable report, recommended a protective tariff, which was enacted late in April, largely in accordance with his recommendation. Although Dallas left the cabinet in October 1816, it was through his efforts that the new bank began its operations in the following January, and specie payments were resumed in February. Dallas, who belonged to the financial school of Albert Gallatin, deserves to rank among America’s greatest financiers. He found the government bankrupt, and after two years at the head of the treasury he left it with a surplus of $20,000,000; moreover, as Henry Adams points out, his measures had “fixed the financial system in a firm groove for twenty years.” He retired from office to resume his practice of the law, but the burden of his official duties had undermined his health, and he died suddenly at Philadelphia on the 16th of June 1817. He was the author of several notable political pamphlets and state papers, and in addition edited The Laws of Pennsylvania, 1700-1801 (1801), and Reports of Cases ruled and adjudged by the Courts of the United States and of Pennsylvania before and since the Revolution (4 vols., 1790-1807; new edition with notes by Thomas J. Wharton, 1830). He wrote An Exposition of the Causes and Character of the War of 1812-15 (1815), which was republished 769 by government authority in New York and London and widely circulated. He left in MS. an unfinished History of Pennsylvania.

DALLAS, ALEXANDER JAMES (1759-1817), American statesman and financier, was born on June 21, 1759, on the island of Jamaica in the West Indies. He was the son of Dr. Robert C. Dallas (d. 1774), a Scottish doctor working there. Dr. Dallas quickly returned to England with his family, and Alexander was educated in Edinburgh and Westminster. He studied law for a time at the Inner Temple and moved back to Jamaica in 1780. There he met the younger Lewis Hallam (1738-1808), an American theater manager and actor, who persuaded him to move to the United States. In 1783, he settled in Philadelphia, took the oath of allegiance to the United States, was admitted to practice law in 1785, and quickly became a notable lawyer. He got involved with Hallam's theatrical projects, writing several plays for him, and from 1787 to 1789, he edited The Columbian Magazine. From 1791 to 1801, he served as the secretary of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Partly because of his strong pamphlet against the Jay treaty in 1795, he gained considerable influence in the state's Democratic-Republican party. During the Whisky Insurrection, he was the paymaster-general of the state militia. His role as secretary didn’t stop him from continuing his private law practice, and he was the attorney for Senator William Blount during his impeachment trial, alongside Jared Ingersoll. Dallas served as the United States attorney for the eastern district of Pennsylvania from 1801 until 1814, a time marked by intense struggles between Democratic-Republican factions in the state. He was a key player in these conflicts, aligning with Governor Thomas M’Kean and Albert Gallatin, while opposing radical factions led by Michael Leib (1759-1822) and William Duane (1760-1835) of the Aurora. The conflict led the M’Kean party to seek Federalist support in 1805. Thanks to Dallas’s political skill, M’Kean was re-elected. In October 1814, President Madison appointed Dallas as secretary of the treasury, succeeding George W. Campbell (1768-1848), whose short and troubled term was marked by widespread bank failures and a severe drop in the value of state and national bank notes. The appointment itself built confidence, and Dallas's swift actions improved the situation. He first issued new interest-bearing treasury notes in smaller amounts and also proposed bringing back a national bank, aiming to stabilize and unify the currency and provide the government a strong tool to maintain its credit. Despite his heavy responsibilities, Dallas energetically took on the role of secretary of war ad interim from March to August 1815, successfully reorganizing the army for peacetime. Although peace improved the financial market, Dallas's efforts to solidify the treasury notes weren’t successful, but a bill led by Calhoun, chairman of the committee on national currency, to create a national bank became law on April 10, 1816. Meanwhile, on February 12, 1816, Dallas recommended a protective tariff in a significant report, which was enacted later in April, largely based on his suggestion. Even though Dallas left the cabinet in October 1816, his efforts ensured that the new bank started operations the following January, and specie payments resumed in February. Belonging to Albert Gallatin’s financial school, Dallas ranks among America’s foremost financiers. He inherited a bankrupt government and, after two years as treasury head, left it with a $20,000,000 surplus; moreover, as Henry Adams noted, his policies “fixed the financial system in a firm groove for twenty years.” He stepped down to return to practicing law, but the strain of his official duties impacted his health, and he suddenly passed away in Philadelphia on June 16, 1817. He authored several influential political pamphlets and state documents, edited The Laws of Pennsylvania, 1700-1801 (1801), and Reports of Cases ruled and adjudged by the Courts of the United States and of Pennsylvania before and since the Revolution (4 vols., 1790-1807; new edition with notes by Thomas J. Wharton, 1830). He wrote An Exposition of the Causes and Character of the War of 1812-15 (1815), which was republished by the government in New York and London and circulated widely. He left behind an unfinished manuscript of History of Pennsylvania.

His brother, Robert Charles Dallas (1754-1824), was born in Jamaica, and lived at various times in the West Indies, the United States, England and France. He was an intimate friend of Lord Byron. He wrote Recollections of Lord Byron (1824), and several novels, plays and miscellaneous works.

His brother, Robert Charles Dallas (1754-1824), was born in Jamaica and lived at different times in the West Indies, the United States, England, and France. He was a close friend of Lord Byron. He wrote Recollections of Lord Byron (1824), as well as several novels, plays, and other works.

See G. M. Dallas, Life and Writings of Alexander James Dallas (Philadelphia, 1871).

See G. M. Dallas, Life and Writings of Alexander James Dallas (Philadelphia, 1871).


DALLAS, GEORGE MIFFLIN (1792-1864), American statesman and diplomat, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 10th of July 1792. He graduated at Princeton in 1810 at the head of his class; then studied law in the office of his father, Alexander J. Dallas, the financier, and was admitted to the bar in 1813. In the same year he accompanied Albert Gallatin, as his secretary, to Russia, and in 1814 returned to the United States as the bearer of important dispatches from the American peace commissioners at Ghent. He practised law in New York and Philadelphia, was chosen mayor of Philadelphia in 1828, and in 1829 was appointed by President Jackson, whom he had twice warmly supported for the presidency, United States attorney for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, a position long held by his father. From 1831 to 1833 he was a Democratic member of the United States Senate, in which he advocated a compromise tariff and strongly supported Jackson’s position in regard to nullification. On the bank question he was at first at variance with the president; in January 1832 he presented in the Senate a memorial from the bank’s president, Nicholas Biddle, and its managers, praying for a recharter, and subsequently he was chairman of a committee which reported a bill re-chartering the institution for a fifteen-year period. Afterwards, however, his views changed and he opposed the bank. From 1833 to 1835 Dallas was attorney-general of Pennsylvania, and from 1835 to 1839 was minister to Russia. During the following years he was engaged in a long struggle with James Buchanan for party leadership in Pennsylvania. He was vice-president of the United States from 1845 to 1849, but the appointment of Buchanan as secretary of state at once shut him off from all hope of party patronage or influence in the Polk administration, and he came to be looked upon as the leader of that body of conservative Democrats of the North, who, while they themselves chafed at the domination of Southern leaders, were disposed to disparage all anti-slavery agitation. By his casting vote at a critical period during the debate in the Senate on the tariff bill of 1846, he irretrievably lost his influence with the protectionist element of his native state, to whom he had given assurances of his support of the Tyler tariff of 1842. For several years after his retirement from office, he devoted himself to his law practice, and in 1856 succeeded James Buchanan as United States minister to England, where he remained until relieved by Charles Francis Adams in May 1861. During this trying period he represented his country with ability and tact, making every endeavour to strengthen the Union cause in Great Britain. He died at Philadelphia on the 1st of December 1864. He wrote a biographical memoir for an edition of his father’s writings, which was published in 1871.

DALLAS, GEORGE MIFFLIN (1792-1864), American statesman and diplomat, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on July 10, 1792. He graduated from Princeton in 1810 at the top of his class; then he studied law in his father’s office, Alexander J. Dallas, a financier, and was admitted to the bar in 1813. That same year, he went to Russia as secretary to Albert Gallatin, and in 1814, he returned to the United States with important dispatches from the American peace commissioners in Ghent. He practiced law in New York and Philadelphia, was elected mayor of Philadelphia in 1828, and in 1829 was appointed by President Jackson, whom he had enthusiastically supported for president, as United States attorney for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, a position his father had held for a long time. From 1831 to 1833, he served as a Democratic member of the United States Senate, where he advocated for a compromise tariff and strongly supported Jackson’s stance on nullification. Initially, he disagreed with the president on the bank issue; in January 1832, he presented a petition in the Senate from the bank’s president, Nicholas Biddle, and its managers, requesting a recharter, and later chaired a committee that reported a bill to recharter the bank for fifteen years. However, he eventually changed his views and opposed the bank. From 1833 to 1835, Dallas was attorney general of Pennsylvania, and from 1835 to 1839, he served as minister to Russia. In the following years, he engaged in a prolonged struggle with James Buchanan for party leadership in Pennsylvania. He was vice president of the United States from 1845 to 1849, but Buchanan’s appointment as secretary of state immediately ended his hopes for party patronage or influence in the Polk administration, and he became regarded as the leader of a group of conservative Northern Democrats who, while frustrated by Southern leaders' dominance, tended to downplay anti-slavery efforts. By casting his vote during a crucial debate on the tariff bill of 1846, he permanently lost his influence with the protectionist faction in his home state, who had expected his support for the Tyler tariff of 1842. For several years after leaving office, he focused on his law practice and in 1856 succeeded James Buchanan as United States minister to England, serving until replaced by Charles Francis Adams in May 1861. During this challenging time, he represented his country adeptly, working hard to bolster the Union cause in Great Britain. He died in Philadelphia on December 1, 1864. He wrote a biographical memoir for an edition of his father’s writings, which was published in 1871.

His Diary of his residence in St Petersburg and London was published in Philadelphia in 1892.

His Diary of his time in St. Petersburg and London was published in Philadelphia in 1892.


DALLAS, a city and the county-seat of Dallas county, Texas, U.S.A., about 220 m. N.W. of Houston, on the E. bank of the Trinity river. Pop. (1880) 10,358; (1890) 38,067; (1900) 42,638, of whom 9035 were negroes and 3381 were foreign-born; (1910) 92,104. Area, about 15 sq. m. Dallas is served by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé, the Houston & Texas Central, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas, the St Louis South-western, the Texas & New Orleans, the Trinity & Brazos Valley, and the Texas & Pacific railways, and by interurban electric railways to Fort Worth and Sherman. The lower channel of the Trinity river has been greatly improved by the Federal government; but in 1908 the river was not navigable as far as Dallas. Among public buildings are the Carnegie library (1901), Dallas county court house, the city hall, the U.S. government building, St Matthew’s cathedral (Prot. Episc.), the cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Rom. Cath.), the city hospital, St Paul’s sanitarium (Rom. Cath.), and the Baptist Memorial sanitarium. Educational institutions include Dallas medical college (1901), the colleges of medicine and pharmacy of Baylor University, the medical college of South-western University (at Georgetown, Texas), Oak Cliff female academy, Patton seminary, St Mary’s female college (Prot. Episc.), and Holy Trinity college (Rom. Cath.). The city had in 1908 three parks—Bachman’s Reservoir (500 acres); Fair (525 acres)—the Texas state fair grounds, in which an annual exhibition is held—and City park (17 acres). Lake Cliff, Cycle and Oak Lawn parks are amusement grounds. A Confederate soldiers’ monument, a granite shaft 50 ft. high, was erected in 1897, with statues of R. E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, “Stonewall” Jackson and A. S. Johnston. Dallas was in 1900 the third city in population and the most important railway centre in Texas. It is a shipping centre for a large wheat, fruit and cotton-raising region, and the principal jobbing market for northern Texas, Oklahoma and part of Louisiana, and the biggest distributing point for agricultural machinery in the South-west. It is a livestock market, and one of the chief centres in the United States for the manufacture of saddlery and leather goods, and of cotton-gin machinery. It has flour and grist mills (the products of which ranked first in value among the city’s manufactures in 1905), wholesale slaughtering and meat-packing establishments, cooperage works, railway repair shops, cotton compresses, lumber yards, salt works, and manufactories of cotton-seed oil and cake, boots and shoes and cotton and agricultural machinery. In 1900 and 1905 it was the principal manufacturing centre in the state, the value of its factory product in 1905 being $15,627,668, an increase of 64.7% over that in 1900. The water-works are owned and operated by the city, and the water is taken from the Elm fork of Trinity river. There are several artesian wells. Dallas, named in honour of G. M. Dallas, was settled in 1841, and first chartered as a city in 1856. The city is governed, under a charter of 1907, by a mayor and four commissioners, who together pass ordinances, appoint nearly all city officers, and generally are responsible for administering the government. In addition a school board is elected by the people. The charter contains initiative and referendum provisions, provides for the recall of any elective city official, and prohibits the granting of any franchise for a longer term than twenty years.

DALLAS, is a city and the county seat of Dallas County, Texas, USA, located about 220 miles northwest of Houston, on the eastern bank of the Trinity River. Population: (1880) 10,358; (1890) 38,067; (1900) 42,638, with 9,035 being African American and 3,381 being foreign-born; (1910) 92,104. Area: about 15 square miles. Dallas is served by several railroads, including the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé, the Houston & Texas Central, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas, the St. Louis Southwestern, the Texas & New Orleans, the Trinity & Brazos Valley, and the Texas & Pacific, along with interurban electric railways to Fort Worth and Sherman. The lower channel of the Trinity River has been significantly improved by the Federal government; however, in 1908 the river was not navigable as far as Dallas. Notable public buildings include the Carnegie Library (1901), the Dallas County Courthouse, City Hall, the U.S. Government Building, St. Matthew’s Cathedral (Protestant Episcopal), the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Roman Catholic), the City Hospital, St. Paul’s Sanitarium (Roman Catholic), and the Baptist Memorial Sanitarium. Educational institutions consist of Dallas Medical College (1901), the Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy of Baylor University, the Medical College of Southwestern University (in Georgetown, Texas), Oak Cliff Female Academy, Patton Seminary, St. Mary’s Female College (Protestant Episcopal), and Holy Trinity College (Roman Catholic). As of 1908, the city had three parks—Bachman’s Reservoir (500 acres); Fair Park (525 acres), which serves as the Texas State Fair grounds holding an annual exhibition; and City Park (17 acres). Lake Cliff, Cycle, and Oak Lawn Parks are amusement areas. In 1897, a Confederate Soldiers’ Monument, a 50-foot-high granite shaft featuring statues of R. E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, “Stonewall” Jackson, and A. S. Johnston, was erected. By 1900, Dallas was the third-largest city by population and the most significant railway hub in Texas. It serves as a shipping center for a vast wheat, fruit, and cotton-growing region, the main wholesale market for northern Texas, Oklahoma, and part of Louisiana, and the largest distribution point for agricultural machinery in the Southwest. Dallas is also a livestock market and one of the principal centers in the United States for manufacturing saddlery and leather goods, as well as cotton-gin machinery. It has flour and grist mills, which ranked first in value among the city’s manufacturing outputs in 1905, wholesale slaughtering and meat-packing facilities, cooperage works, railway repair shops, cotton compresses, lumber yards, salt works, and manufacturers of cottonseed oil and cake, boots and shoes, and agricultural machinery. In 1900 and 1905, it was the main manufacturing center in the state, with the value of its factory output in 1905 being $15,627,668, an increase of 64.7% from 1900. The waterworks are city-owned and operated, sourcing water from the Elm Fork of the Trinity River, along with several artesian wells. Dallas, named after G. M. Dallas, was settled in 1841 and first chartered as a city in 1856. The city is governed under a charter established in 1907 by a mayor and four commissioners, who collectively pass ordinances, appoint almost all city officials, and are generally responsible for government administration. Additionally, a school board is elected by the people. The charter includes provisions for initiative and referendum, allows for the recall of any elected city official, and prohibits granting any franchise for a term longer than twenty years.


DALLE (pronounced “dal,” Fr. for a flag-stone or flat tile), a rapid falling over flat smooth rock surfaces in a river bed, especially in rivers flowing between basaltic rocks. The name is common in America, and came into use through the French employés of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Well-known “dalles” are on the St Louis, St Croix and Wisconsin rivers. The “dalles” of the Columbia river are very beautiful, and have given its name to Dalles (1910 pop. 4880), county-seat of Wasco county, Oregon.

DALLE (pronounced “dal,” which is French for a flagstone or flat tile), refers to a quick descent over flat, smooth rock surfaces in a riverbed, particularly in rivers that flow between basaltic rocks. This term is commonly used in America and originated from the French employees of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Well-known “dalles” can be found on the St. Louis, St. Croix, and Wisconsin rivers. The “dalles” of the Columbia River are quite stunning and inspired the name of Dalles (1910 pop. 4880), the county seat of Wasco County, Oregon.


DALLIN, CYRUS EDWIN (1861-  ), American sculptor, was born at Springville, Utah, on the 22nd of November 1861. He was a pupil of Truman H. Bartlett in Boston, of the École des Beaux Arts, the Académie Julien and the sculptors Henri M. Chapu and Jean Dampt (born 1858), in Paris, and on his return to America became instructor in modelling in the state normal art school in Boston. He is best known for his plastic representations of the North American Indian—especially for “The Signal of Peace” in Lincoln Park, Chicago, and “The Medicine Man,” in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia. As a boy he had lived among the Indians in the Far West, and had learned their language. His later works include “Pioneer Monument,” Salt Lake City; “Sir Isaac Newton,” Congressional Library, Washington; and “Don Quixote.” He won a silver medal at the Paris Exposition, 1900, and a gold medal at the St Louis Exposition, 1904.

DALLIN, CYRUS EDWIN (1861-  ), American sculptor, was born in Springville, Utah, on November 22, 1861. He studied under Truman H. Bartlett in Boston, at the École des Beaux Arts, the Académie Julien, and with sculptors Henri M. Chapu and Jean Dampt (born 1858) in Paris. After returning to America, he became an instructor in modeling at the state normal art school in Boston. He is best known for his sculptures of North American Indians—especially for "The Signal of Peace" in Lincoln Park, Chicago, and "The Medicine Man" in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia. As a boy, he lived among the Indians in the Far West and learned their language. His later works include "Pioneer Monument" in Salt Lake City, "Sir Isaac Newton" in the Congressional Library, Washington, and "Don Quixote." He won a silver medal at the Paris Exposition in 1900 and a gold medal at the St. Louis Exposition in 1904.


DALLING AND BULWER, WILLIAM HENRY LYTTON EARLE BULWER, Baron (1801-1872), better known as Sir Henry Bulwer, English diplomatist and author, was born in London on the 13th of February 1801. His father, General William Earle Bulwer, when colonel of the 106th regiment, had married Elizabeth Barbara Lytton, who—as the only child 770 of Richard Warburton Lytton, of Knebworth Park, in Hertfordshire—was sole heiress of the family of Norreys-Robinson-Lytton of Monacdhu in the island of Anglesea and of Guersylt in Denbighshire. Three sons were the fruit of this marriage. The second, afterwards Lord Dalling, was amply provided for by his selection as heir to his maternal grandmother; the paternal estates in Norfolk went to his elder brother William, and the maternal property in Herts to the youngest, Edward, known first as Bulwer the novelist and dramatist, and afterwards as the first Baron Lytton (q.v.) of Knebworth.

DALLING AND BULWER, WILLIAM HENRY LYTTON Earle Bulwer, Baron (1801-1872), more commonly known as Sir Henry Bulwer, was an English diplomat and author born in London on February 13, 1801. His father, General William Earle Bulwer, who was a colonel in the 106th regiment, married Elizabeth Barbara Lytton, the only child 770 of Richard Warburton Lytton from Knebworth Park in Hertfordshire. She was the sole heiress of the family of Norreys-Robinson-Lytton from Monacdhu on the island of Anglesea and Guersylt in Denbighshire. This marriage produced three sons. The second son, later known as Lord Dalling, received a generous inheritance as the heir to his maternal grandmother; the paternal estates in Norfolk went to his older brother William, while the maternal property in Hertfordshire went to the youngest, Edward, who was known initially as Bulwer the novelist and dramatist and later became the first Baron Lytton (q.v.) of Knebworth.

General Bulwer, as brigadier-general of volunteers, was one of the four commanding officers to whom was entrusted the defence of England in 1804, when threatened with invasion by Napoleon. Three years afterwards, on the 7th of July 1807, he died prematurely at fifty-two at Heyden Hall. His young widow had then devolved upon her not only the double charge of caring for the estates in Herts and Norfolk, but the far weightier responsibility of superintending the education of her three sons, then in their earliest boyhood. Henry Bulwer was educated at Harrow, under Dr George Butler, and at Trinity College and Downing College, Cambridge. In 1822 he published a small volume of verse, beginning with an ode on the death of Napoleon. It is chiefly interesting now for its fraternal dedication to Edward Lytton Bulwer, then a youth of nineteen.

General Bulwer, as a brigadier-general of volunteers, was one of the four commanding officers responsible for defending England in 1804 when it faced the threat of invasion by Napoleon. Three years later, on July 7, 1807, he died young at fifty-two at Heyden Hall. His young widow then had the added responsibility of managing the estates in Herts and Norfolk, along with the much heavier duty of overseeing the education of her three sons, who were still very young. Henry Bulwer was educated at Harrow, under Dr. George Butler, and at Trinity College and Downing College, Cambridge. In 1822, he published a small volume of poetry, starting with an ode on Napoleon's death. It is mainly notable now for its brotherly dedication to Edward Lytton Bulwer, who was then just nineteen.

On leaving Cambridge in the autumn of 1824, Henry Bulwer went, as emissary of the Greek committee then sitting in London, to the Morea, carrying with him £80,000 sterling, which he handed over to Prince Mavrocordato and his colleagues, as the responsible leaders of the War of Independence. He was accompanied on this expedition by Hamilton Browne, who, a year before, had been despatched by Lord Byron to Cephalonia to treat with the insurgent government. Shortly after his return to England in 1826, Bulwer published a record of this excursion, under the title of An Autumn in Greece. Meanwhile, bent for the moment upon following in his father’s footsteps, he had, on the 19th of October 1825, been gazetted as a cornet in the 2nd Life Guards. Within less than eight months, however, he had exchanged from cavalry to infantry, being enrolled on the 2nd of June 1826 as an ensign in the 58th regiment. That ensigncy he retained for little more than a month, obtaining another unattached, which he held until the 1st of January 1829, when he finally abandoned the army. The court, not the camp, was to be the scene of his successes; and for thirty-eight years altogether—from August 1827 to August 1865—he contrived, while maturing from a young attaché to an astute and veteran ambassador, to hold his own with ease, and in the end was ranked amongst the subtlest intellects of his time as a master of diplomacy. His first appointment in his new profession was as an attaché at Berlin. In April 1830 he obtained his next step through his nomination as an attaché at Vienna. Thence, exactly a year afterwards, he was employed nearer home in the same capacity at the Hague.

Upon leaving Cambridge in the fall of 1824, Henry Bulwer went to the Morea as a representative of the Greek committee based in London, bringing £80,000 sterling with him, which he handed over to Prince Mavrocordato and his colleagues, the leaders of the War of Independence. He was joined on this mission by Hamilton Browne, who had been sent by Lord Byron to Cephalonia the previous year to negotiate with the insurgent government. Shortly after returning to England in 1826, Bulwer published a record of this trip, titled An Autumn in Greece. Meanwhile, eager to follow in his father’s footsteps, he was appointed a cornet in the 2nd Life Guards on October 19, 1825. However, within less than eight months, he switched from cavalry to infantry, being enrolled on June 2, 1826, as an ensign in the 58th regiment. He kept that ensign rank for just over a month before obtaining another unattached position, which he held until January 1, 1829, when he finally left the army. The court, not the military, was where his successes would be; and for thirty-eight years—from August 1827 to August 1865—he managed to grow from a young attaché to a clever and seasoned ambassador, easily holding his own and ultimately being recognized among the sharpest minds of his time as a master of diplomacy. His first job in his new career was as an attaché in Berlin. In April 1830, he advanced to the next level by being appointed an attaché in Vienna. Exactly a year later, he was assigned closer to home in the same role in The Hague.

As yet ostensibly no more than a careless lounger in the salons of the continent, the young ex-cavalry officer veiled the keenest observation under an air of indifference. His constitutional energy, which throughout life was exceptionally intense and tenacious, wore from the first a mask of languor. When in reality most cautious he was seemingly most negligent. No matter what he happened at the moment to take in hand, the art he applied to it was always that highest art of all, the ars celare artem. His mastery of the lightest but most essential weapon in the armoury of the diplomatist, tact, came to him as it seemed intuitively, and from the outset was consummate. Talleyrand himself would have had no reason, even in Henry Bulwer’s earliest years as an attaché, to write entreatingly, “pas de zèle,” to one who concealed so felicitously, even at starting, a lynx-like vigilance under an aspect the most phlegmatic. He had hardly reached his new post at the Hague when he found and seized his opportunity. The revolutionary explosion of July at Paris had been echoed on the 25th of August 1830 by an outburst of insurrection at Brussels. During the whole of September a succession of stormy events swept over Belgium, until the popular rising reached its climax on the 4th of October in the declaration of Belgian independence by the provisional government. At the beginning of the revolution, the young attaché was despatched by the then foreign secretary at Whitehall, Lord Aberdeen, to watch events as they arose and report their character. In the execution of his special mission he traversed the country in all directions amidst civil war, the issue of which was to the last degree problematic. Under those apparently bewildering circumstances, he was enabled by his sagacity and penetration to win his spurs as a diplomatist. Writing almost haphazard in the midst of the conflict, he sent home from day to day a series of despatches which threw a flood of light upon incidents that would otherwise have appeared almost inexplicable. Scarcely a week had elapsed, during which his predictions had been wonderfully verified, when he was summoned to London to receive the congratulations of the cabinet. He returned to Brussels no longer in a merely temporary or informal capacity. As secretary of legation, and afterwards as chargé d’affaires, he assisted in furthering the negotiations out of which Belgium rose into a kingdom. Scarcely had this been accomplished when he wrote what may be called the first chapter of the history of the newly created Belgian kingdom. It appeared in 1831 as a brief but luminous paper in the January number of the Westminster Review. And as the events it recorded had helped to inaugurate its writer’s career as a diplomatist, so did his narrative of those occurrences in the pages of the Radical quarterly signalize in a remarkable way the commencement of his long and consistent career as a Liberal politician. Shortly before his appearance as a reviewer, and immediately prior to the carrying of the first Reform Bill, Bulwer had won a seat in the House of Commons as member for Wilton, afterwards in 1831 and 1832 sitting there as M.P. for Coventry. Nearly two years having elapsed, during which he was absent from parliament, he was in 1834 returned to Westminster as member for Marylebone. That position he retained during four sessions, winning considerable distinction as a debater. Within the very year in which he was chosen by the Marylebone electors, he brought out in two volumes, entitled France—Literary, Social and Political, the first half of a work which was only completed upon the publication, two years afterwards, of a second series, also in two volumes, under the title of The Monarchy of the Middle Classes. Through its pages he made good his claim to be regarded not merely as a keen-witted observer, but as one of the most sagacious and genial delineators of the generic Frenchman, above all of that supreme type of the race, with whom all through his life he especially delighted to hold familiar intercourse, the true Parisian. Between the issuing from the press of these two series, Henry Bulwer had prefixed an intensely sympathetic Life of Lord Byron to the Paris edition of the poet’s works published by Galignani,—a memoir republished sixteen years afterwards. A political argument of a curiously daring and outspoken character, entitled The Lords, the Government, and the Country, was given to the public in 1836 by Bulwer, in the form of an elaborate letter to a constituent. At this point his literary labours, which throughout life were with him purely labours by-the-way, ceased for a time, and he disappeared during three decades from authorship and from the legislature.

As of now, he appeared to be just a laid-back observer in the salons of Europe, but the young former cavalry officer hid sharp observations behind a facade of indifference. His natural energy, which was incredibly intense and persistent throughout his life, initially presented itself as lethargy. In reality, when he was the most careful, he seemed the most careless. No matter what he was handling at the time, he always applied the ultimate skill, the ars celare artem. His intuitive mastery of the most subtle yet essential tool in a diplomat's arsenal—tact—was remarkable from the beginning. Even Talleyrand wouldn't have needed to write a pleading “pas de zèle” to someone who so skillfully masked their eagle-eyed vigilance under such a calm demeanor, even at the start. He had barely started his new post in The Hague when he recognized and acted on his chance. The revolutionary surge in Paris in July had led, on August 25, 1830, to an insurrection in Brussels. Throughout September, a series of tumultuous events cascaded over Belgium, culminating on October 4 in the declaration of Belgian independence by the provisional government. At the revolution's outset, the young attaché was sent by the foreign secretary at Whitehall, Lord Aberdeen, to monitor the unfolding events and report back. While carrying out his special assignment, he traveled throughout the country amidst a civil war whose outcome was highly uncertain. In those seemingly chaotic circumstances, his sharp insight allowed him to establish himself as a diplomat. Writing almost casually amid the turmoil, he sent back daily reports that clarified events that would have otherwise seemed almost incomprehensible. It was barely a week later, with his predictions having been remarkably accurate, that he was called to London to receive congratulations from the cabinet. He returned to Brussels no longer in a temporary or informal role. As secretary of legation, and later as chargé d’affaires, he played a crucial role in advancing the negotiations that led to Belgium becoming a kingdom. Hardly had this been achieved than he wrote what could be considered the first chapter of the history of the newly established Belgian kingdom. It was published in January 1831 as a brief yet illuminating article in the Westminster Review. Just as the events he chronicled helped launch his career as a diplomat, his account of those events in the Radical quarterly marked the remarkable beginning of his long and consistent journey as a Liberal politician. Shortly before he appeared as a reviewer and just before the passing of the first Reform Bill, Bulwer secured a seat in the House of Commons as the representative for Wilton, later serving as an M.P. for Coventry in 1831 and 1832. After nearly two years away from Parliament, he returned in 1834 as an M.P. for Marylebone. He held that position for four sessions, gaining significant recognition as a debater. In the very year he was elected by the Marylebone voters, he published two volumes titled France—Literary, Social and Political, the first half of a work completed two years later with a second series, also in two volumes, called The Monarchy of the Middle Classes. Through these pages, he established himself as not merely an astute observer but also as one of the most insightful and engaging portrayals of the typical Frenchman, especially that quintessential type of the race he delighted to engage with throughout his life, the true Parisian. Between the release of these two series, Henry Bulwer included a deeply sympathetic Life of Lord Byron in the Paris edition of the poet's works published by Galignani, a memoir that was republished sixteen years later. In 1836, Bulwer released a boldly daring political argument titled The Lords, the Government, and the Country, presented as an elaborate letter to a constituent. At this juncture, his literary efforts, which had always been just side projects for him, paused for a while, and he stepped away from authorship and the legislature for three decades.

During the period of his holding the position of chargé d’affaires at Brussels, Bulwer had seized every opportunity of making lengthened sojourns at Paris, always for him the choicest place of residence. It was in the midst of one of these dolce far niente loiterings on the boulevards that, on the 14th of August 1837, he received his nomination as secretary of embassy at Constantinople. Recognizing his exceptional ability Lord Ponsonby, the British ambassador at Constantinople, at once entrusted to him the difficult task of negotiating a commercial treaty, which had the double object of removing the intolerable conditions which hampered British trade with Turkey and of dealing a blow at the threatening power of Mehemet Ali, pasha of Egypt, by shattering the system of monopolies on which it was largely based. In this difficult task Bulwer was helped by the hatred of Sultan Mahmed II. for Mehemet Ali, but the treaty was none the less a remarkable 771 proof of his diplomatic skill, and the compliment was well deserved when Palmerston, in writing his congratulations to him from Windsor Castle, on the 13th of September 1838, pronounced the treaty a capo d’opera, adding that without reserve it would be at once ratified. Shortly after this achievement Bulwer was nominated secretary of embassy at St Petersburg. Illness, however, compelled him to delay his northern journey—almost opportunely, as it happened, for in June 1839 he was despatched, in the same capacity, to the more congenial atmosphere of Paris. At that juncture the developments of the feud between Mehemet Ali and the Porte were threatening to bring England and France into armed collision (see Mehemet Ali). In 1839 and 1840, during the temporary absence of his chief, Lord Granville, the secretary of embassy was gazetted ad interim chargé d’affaires at the court of France, and thus during this critical time he had fresh opportunities of winning distinction as a diplomatist.

While he was serving as chargé d’affaires in Brussels, Bulwer took every chance to spend extended time in Paris, which he always considered the best place to stay. It was during one of these relaxing moments on the boulevards, on August 14, 1837, that he received his appointment as secretary of embassy in Constantinople. Recognizing his exceptional talent, Lord Ponsonby, the British ambassador in Constantinople, immediately assigned him the challenging task of negotiating a commercial treaty. This treaty aimed to eliminate the unbearable conditions that hindered British trade with Turkey and to weaken the growing power of Mehemet Ali, the pasha of Egypt, by disrupting the monopolistic system that supported it. Bulwer benefitted from Sultan Mahmed II's animosity towards Mehemet Ali during this challenging endeavor, but the treaty still stood as a remarkable testament to his diplomatic abilities. When Palmerston congratulated him from Windsor Castle on September 13, 1838, he called the treaty a masterpiece and assured him that it would be ratified without hesitation. Soon after this achievement, Bulwer was appointed as secretary of embassy in St. Petersburg. However, illness forced him to postpone his northern trip—almost fortuitously, as it turned out, since he was sent to the more favorable atmosphere of Paris in June 1839 in the same role. At that time, the escalating conflict between Mehemet Ali and the Porte was threatening to lead England and France into military confrontation (see Mehemet Ali). In 1839 and 1840, during the temporary absence of his boss, Lord Granville, the secretary of embassy was briefly appointed as chargé d’affaires at the court of France, giving him new opportunities to excel as a diplomat during this critical period.

On the 14th of November 1843 he was appointed ambassador at the court of the young Spanish queen Isabella II. Upon his arrival at Madrid signal evidence was afforded of the estimation in which he was then held as a diplomatist. He was chosen arbitrator between Spain and Morocco, then confronting each other in deadly hostility, and, as the result of his mediation, a treaty of peace was signed between the two powers in 1844. In 1846 a much more formidable difficulty arose,—one which, after threatening war between France and England, led at last to a diplomatic rupture between the British and Spanish governments. The dynastic intrigues of Louis Philippe were the immediate cause of this estrangement, and those intrigues found their climax in what has ever since been known in European annals as the Spanish Marriages. The storm sown in the Spanish marriages was reaped in the whirlwind of the February revolution. And the explosion which took place at Paris was answered a month afterwards at Madrid by a similar outbreak. Marshal Narvaez thereupon assumed the dictatorship, and wreaked upon the insurgents a series of reprisals of the most pitiless character. These excessive severities of the marshal-dictator the British ambassador did his utmost to mitigate. When at last, however, Narvaez carried his rigour to the length of summarily suppressing the constitutional guarantees, Bulwer sent in a formal protest in the name of England against an act so entirely ruthless and unjustifiable. This courageous proceeding at once drew down upon the British envoy a counter-stroke as ill-judged as it was unprecedented. Narvaez, with matchless effrontery, denounced the ambassador from England as an accomplice in the conspiracies of the Progressistas; and despite his position as an envoy, and in insolent defiance of the Palmerstonian boast, Civis Britannicus, Bulwer, on the 12th of June, was summarily required to quit Madrid within twenty-four hours. Two days afterwards M. Isturitz, the Spanish ambassador at the court of St James’s, took his departure from London. Diplomatic relations were not restored between the two countries until years had elapsed, nor even then until after a formal apology, dictated by Lord Palmerston, had been signed by the prime minister of Queen Isabella. Before his return the ambassador was gazetted a K.C.B., being promoted to the grand cross some three years afterwards. In addition to this mark of honour he received the formal approbation of the ministry, and with it the thanks of both Houses of Parliament.

On November 14, 1843, he was appointed ambassador to the young Spanish queen Isabella II. When he arrived in Madrid, it was clear how highly regarded he was as a diplomat. He was chosen to mediate between Spain and Morocco, which were in serious conflict at the time. Thanks to his efforts, a peace treaty was signed between the two nations in 1844. In 1846, a much more serious issue came up—one that nearly caused war between France and England and ultimately led to a diplomatic breakdown between Britain and Spain. The dynastic schemes of Louis Philippe were the immediate cause of this tension, culminating in what became known in European history as the Spanish Marriages. The turmoil sown by the Spanish marriages resulted in the upheaval of the February Revolution. A month later, the unrest in Paris was mirrored by a similar revolt in Madrid. Marshal Narvaez then took control and unleashed brutal reprisals on the insurgents. The British ambassador worked hard to ease the marshal-dictator's harsh measures. However, when Narvaez went so far as to cancel constitutional guarantees, Bulwer formally protested on behalf of England against such a ruthless and unjust action. This bold move quickly backfired on the British envoy in an unexpected and poorly considered response. Narvaez audaciously accused the British ambassador of colluding with the Progressistas' conspiracies, and despite his diplomatic status, Bulwer was ordered on June 12 to leave Madrid within twenty-four hours. Two days later, M. Isturitz, the Spanish ambassador to the court of St. James’s, also left London. Diplomatic relations between the two countries wouldn’t be restored for several years, until a formal apology—dictated by Lord Palmerston—was signed by Queen Isabella's prime minister. Before returning, the ambassador was appointed a K.C.B. and was promoted to grand cross about three years later. Along with this honor, he received official approval from the government, along with thanks from both Houses of Parliament.

Before the year of his return from the peninsula had run out Sir Henry Bulwer was married to the Hon. Georgiana Charlotte Mary Wellesley, youngest daughter of the 1st Baron Cowley, and niece to the duke of Wellington. Early in the following year, on the 27th of April 1849, he was nominated ambassador at Washington. There he acquired immense popularity. His principal success was the compact known as the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (q.v.), ratified in May 1850, pledging the contracting governments to respect the neutrality of the meditated ship canal through Central America, bringing the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific into direct communication. After having been accredited as ambassador to the United States for three years, Sir Henry Bulwer, early in 1852, was despatched as minister plenipotentiary at the court of the grand duke of Tuscany at Florence. Shortly after his retirement from that post in the January of 1855, he was entrusted with various diplomatic missions, in one of which he was empowered as commissioner under the 23rd article of the treaty of Paris, 1856, to investigate the state of things in the Danubian principalities, with a view to their definite reorganization. Finally he was installed, from May 1858 to August 1865, as the immediate successor, after the close of the Crimean war, of the “Great Elchi,” Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe, as ambassador extraordinary to the Ottoman Porte at Constantinople.

Before the year of his return from the peninsula was over, Sir Henry Bulwer married the Hon. Georgiana Charlotte Mary Wellesley, the youngest daughter of the 1st Baron Cowley and niece of the Duke of Wellington. Early the next year, on April 27, 1849, he was appointed ambassador in Washington. There, he became extremely popular. His main achievement was the agreement known as the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (see entry), ratified in May 1850, which committed the two governments to respect the neutrality of the planned ship canal through Central America, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans directly. After serving as ambassador to the United States for three years, Sir Henry Bulwer was sent in early 1852 as minister plenipotentiary to the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany in Florence. Shortly after leaving that position in January 1855, he was assigned various diplomatic missions, including being given the authority as commissioner under the 23rd article of the Treaty of Paris, 1856, to investigate the situation in the Danubian principalities for their eventual reorganization. Finally, from May 1858 to August 1865, he served as the immediate successor, after the end of the Crimean War, to the "Great Elchi," Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe, as extraordinary ambassador to the Ottoman Porte in Constantinople.

In the winter of 1865 Bulwer returned home from the Bosporus, and retired with a pension. He was elected member for Tamworth on the 17th of November 1868, and retained his seat until gazetted as a peer of the realm on the 21st of March 1871, under the title of Baron Dalling and Bulwer of Wood Dalling in the county of Norfolk. Upon the eve of his return to his old haunts as a debater and a politician he had asserted his claim to literary distinction by giving to the world in two volumes his four masterly sketches of typical men, entitled Historical Characters. This work, dedicated to his brother Edward, in testimony of the writer’s fraternal affection and friendship, portrayed in luminous outline Talleyrand the Politic Man, Cobbett the Contentious Man, Canning the Brilliant Man, and Mackintosh the Man of Promise. Two other kindred sketches, those of Sir Robert Peel and Viscount Melbourne, having been selected from among their author’s papers, were afterwards published posthumously. Another work of ampler outline and larger pretension was begun and partially issued from the press during Lord Dalling’s lifetime, but not completed. This was the Life of Viscount Palmerston, the first two volumes of which were published in 1870. A third volume appeared four years afterwards. Even then it left the story of the English statesman broken off so abruptly that the work remained at the last the merest fragment. It was completed by Evelyn Ashley.

In the winter of 1865, Bulwer came back home from the Bosporus and retired with a pension. He was elected as the member for Tamworth on November 17, 1868, and kept his seat until he was appointed as a peer on March 21, 1871, with the title Baron Dalling and Bulwer of Wood Dalling in Norfolk. Just before returning to his old haunts as a debater and politician, he asserted his literary talent by publishing two volumes of his four brilliant sketches of typical figures, titled Historical Characters. This work, dedicated to his brother Edward as a sign of his brotherly love and friendship, vividly portrayed Talleyrand the Politic Man, Cobbett the Contentious Man, Canning the Brilliant Man, and Mackintosh the Man of Promise. Two other related sketches, those of Sir Robert Peel and Viscount Melbourne, were chosen from the author's papers and were published posthumously. Another, more ambitious work was started and partially published during Lord Dalling’s lifetime but was never finished. This was the Life of Viscount Palmerston, with the first two volumes published in 1870. A third volume came out four years later. Even then, it left the story of the English statesman so abruptly that the work remained just a fragment. It was later completed by Evelyn Ashley.

Lord Dalling died unexpectedly on the 23rd of May 1872 at Naples. He had no issue, and the title became extinct. In his public career he enjoyed a three-fold success—as ambassador, as politician and as man of letters. His popularity in society was at all times remarkable, mainly no doubt from his mastery of all the subtler arts of a skilled conversationalist. The apparent languor with which he related an anecdote, flung off a bon mot, or indulged in a momentary stroke of irony imparted interest to the narrative, wings to the wit and point to the sarcasm in a manner peculiarly his own.

Lord Dalling died unexpectedly on May 23, 1872, in Naples. He had no children, and the title became extinct. In his public career, he achieved success in three areas: as an ambassador, as a politician, and as a writer. His popularity in society was always noteworthy, undoubtedly due to his skill in the subtler arts of conversation. The apparent ease with which he shared an anecdote, tossed out a clever remark, or used a moment of irony added interest to his stories, gave flight to his wit, and sharpened his sarcasm in a way that was uniquely his own.

(C. K.)

DALLMEYER, JOHN HENRY (1830-1883), Anglo-German optician, was born on the 6th of September 1830 at Loxten, Westphalia, the son of a landowner. On leaving school at the age of sixteen he was apprenticed to an Osnabrück optician, and in 1851 he came to London, where he obtained work with an optician, W. Hewitt, who shortly afterwards, with his workmen, entered the employment of Andrew Ross, a lens and telescope manufacturer. Dallmeyer’s position in this workshop appears to have been an unpleasant one, and led him to take, for a time, employment as French and German correspondent for a commercial firm. After a year he was, however, re-engaged by Ross as scientific adviser, and was entrusted with the testing and finishing of the highest class of optical apparatus. This appointment led to his marriage with Ross’s second daughter, Hannah, and to the inheritance, at Ross’s death (1859), of a third of his employer’s large fortune and the telescope manufacturing portion of the business. Turning from astronomical work to the making of photographic lenses (see Photography), he introduced improvements in both portrait and landscape lenses, in object-glasses for the microscope and in condensers for the optical lantern. In connexion with celestial photography he constructed photo-heliographs for the Wilna observatory in 1863, for the Harvard College observatory in 1864, and, in 1873, several for the British government. Dallmeyer’s instruments achieved a wide success in Europe and America, taking the highest awards at various international exhibitions. The Russian government gave him the order of St Stanislaus, and the French government made him chevalier of the Legion of Honour. He was for many 772 years upon the councils of both the Royal Astronomical and Royal Photographic societies. About 1880 he was advised to give up the personal supervision of his workshops, and to travel for his health, but he died on board ship, off the coast of New Zealand, on the 30th of December 1883.

DALLMEYER, JOHN HENRY (1830-1883), Anglo-German optician, was born on September 6, 1830, in Loxten, Westphalia, to a landowner. After finishing school at sixteen, he became an apprentice to an optician in Osnabrück. In 1851, he moved to London, where he got a job with an optician named W. Hewitt, who soon after joined Andrew Ross, a manufacturer of lenses and telescopes, along with his team. Dallmeyer’s role in this workshop seemed to be quite unpleasant, prompting him to work briefly as a French and German correspondent for a commercial firm. However, after a year, Ross re-hired him as a scientific advisor, allowing him to test and finish high-quality optical devices. This job eventually led to his marriage to Ross’s second daughter, Hannah, and to inheriting a third of Ross's substantial fortune and the telescope manufacturing part of the business upon Ross’s death in 1859. Shifting from astronomical work to creating photographic lenses (see Photography), he improved both portrait and landscape lenses, as well as object glasses for microscopes and condensers for optical lanterns. In connection with celestial photography, he built photo-heliographs for the Wilna observatory in 1863, for the Harvard College observatory in 1864, and several for the British government in 1873. Dallmeyer’s instruments were widely successful in Europe and America, winning top awards at various international exhibitions. The Russian government awarded him the Order of St. Stanislaus, and the French government made him a chevalier of the Legion of Honour. He served on the councils of both the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Photographic Society for many years. Around 1880, he was advised to stop personally overseeing his workshops and to travel for his health but unfortunately died on a ship off the coast of New Zealand on December 30, 1883.

His second son, Thomas Rudolphus Dallmeyer (1859-1906), who assumed control of the business on the failure of his father’s health, was principally known as the first to introduce telephotographic lenses into ordinary practice (patented 1891), and he was the author of a standard book on the subject (Telephotography, 1899). He served as president of the Royal Photographic Society in 1900-1903.

His second son, Thomas Rudolph Dallmeyer (1859-1906), who took over the business when his father's health declined, was mainly known for being the first to bring telephotographic lenses into common use (patented 1891), and he wrote a standard book on the topic (Telephotography, 1899). He was the president of the Royal Photographic Society from 1900 to 1903.


DALL’ ONGARO, FRANCESCO (1808-1873), Italian writer, born in Friuli, was educated for the priesthood, but abandoned his orders, and taking to political journalism founded the Favilla at Trieste in the Liberal interest. In 1848 he enlisted under Garibaldi, and next year was a member of the assembly which proclaimed the republic in Rome, being given by Mazzini the direction of the Monitor officiale. On the downfall of the republic he fled to Switzerland, then to Belgium and later to France, taking a prominent part in revolutionary journalism; it was not till 1860 that he returned to Italy, where he was appointed professor of dramatic literature at Florence. Subsequently he was transferred to Naples, where he died on the 10th of January 1873. His patriotic poems, Stornelli, composed in early life, had a great popular success; and he produced a number of plays, notably Fornaretto, Bianca Capello, Fasma and Il Tesoro. His collected Fantasie drammatiche e liriche were published in his lifetime.

DALL'ONGARO, FRANCESCO (1808-1873), Italian writer, born in Friuli, was trained for the priesthood but decided to leave that path. He turned to political journalism and founded the Favilla in Trieste, supporting the Liberal cause. In 1848, he joined Garibaldi's forces, and the following year, he was part of the assembly that declared the republic in Rome, where Mazzini appointed him to lead the Monitor officiale. After the republic fell, he escaped to Switzerland, then to Belgium, and later to France, becoming a key figure in revolutionary journalism. It wasn’t until 1860 that he returned to Italy, where he was made a professor of dramatic literature in Florence. He was later moved to Naples, where he passed away on January 10, 1873. His patriotic poems, Stornelli, written in his youth, were very popular, and he wrote several plays, including Fornaretto, Bianca Capello, Fasma, and Il Tesoro. His collected Fantasie drammatiche e liriche were published during his lifetime.


DALMATIA (Ger. Dalmatien; Ital. Dalmazia; Serbo-Croatian, Dalmacija), a kingdom and crownland of the Austro-Hungarian empire, in the north-west of the Balkan Peninsula, and on the Adriatic Sea. Dalmatia is bounded, on the landward side, by Croatia and Bosnia, in the N. and N.E.; and by Herzegovina and Montenegro, in the S.E. and S. Its area amounts to 4923 sq. m.; its greatest length, from north-west to south-east, is 210 m.; its breadth reaches 35 m. between Point Planca and the Bosnian frontier, diminishing to less than 1 m. at Cattaro. Near the ports of Klek and Castelnuovo the Herzegovinian frontier comes down to the sea,1 but only for a total distance of 14½ m.

DALMATIA (Ger. Dalmatien; Ital. Dalmazia; Serbo-Croatian, Dalmacija), a kingdom and crownland of the Austro-Hungarian empire, located in the northwest of the Balkan Peninsula, along the Adriatic Sea. Dalmatia is bordered on the land side by Croatia and Bosnia to the north and northeast; and by Herzegovina and Montenegro to the southeast and south. Its total area is 4,923 square miles; its greatest length, from northwest to southeast, is 210 miles; its width reaches 35 miles between Point Planca and the Bosnian border, narrowing to less than 1 mile at Cattaro. Near the ports of Klek and Castelnuovo, the Herzegovinian border extends to the sea, 1 but only for a total distance of 14.5 miles.

Physical Features.—No part of the Mediterranean shore, except the coast of Greece, is so deeply indented as the Dalmatian littoral, with its multitude of rock-bound bays and inlets. It is sheltered from the open sea by a rampart of islands which vary greatly in size; a few being large enough to support several thousand inhabitants, while others are mere reefs, swept bare by the sea, or tenanted only by rabbits and seabirds. This Dalmatian archipelago, separated from the Istrian by the Gulf of Quarnerolo, forms two island groups, the northern or Liburnian, and the southern; with open water intervening, off Point Planca. In calm weather the channels between the islands and the mainland resemble a chain of landlocked lakes, brilliantly clear to a depth of several fathoms. As a rule, the surrounding hills are rugged, bleached almost white or pale russet, and destitute of verdure; but their monotony is relieved by the half-ruined castles and monasteries clinging to the rocks, or by the beauty of such cities as Ragusa, or Arbe, with its fantastic row of steeples overlooking the beach. The principal islands, Arbe, Brazza, Curzola, Lacroma, Lesina, Lissa and Meleda, are described under separate headings. The promontory of Sabbioncello, or Punta di Stagno, which juts out for 41 m. into the sea, between Curzola and Lesina, is almost another island; for its breadth, which nowhere exceeds 5 m., dwindles to about 1 m. at the narrow isthmus which unites it with the shore. There are two small ports on this isthmus—on the south, Stagno Grande (Serbo-Croatian, Ston Veliki), once celebrated for its salt and shipbuilding industries, and, on the north, Stagno Piccolo (Ston Mali). Dalmatia possesses a magnificent anchorage in the Bocche di Cattaro, and there are numerous lesser havens, at Sebenico, Traù, Zara and elsewhere along the coast and among the islands.

Physical Features.—No part of the Mediterranean coast, except for Greece, is as deeply carved as the Dalmatian coastline, with its many rocky bays and inlets. It is protected from the open sea by a chain of islands that vary greatly in size; some are big enough to house thousands of residents, while others are just reefs, scoured by the waves, or home to only rabbits and seabirds. This Dalmatian archipelago, separated from Istria by the Gulf of Quarnerolo, forms two groups of islands: the northern or Liburnian and the southern, with open water in between, off Point Planca. In calm weather, the channels between the islands and the mainland look like a series of landlocked lakes, crystal clear to several fathoms deep. Generally, the surrounding hills are rugged, nearly white or pale brown, and bare; however, their monotony is broken by half-ruined castles and monasteries clinging to the cliffs, or by the charm of cities like Ragusa or Arbe, with its striking row of steeples overlooking the beach. The main islands, Arbe, Brazza, Curzola, Lacroma, Lesina, Lissa, and Meleda, are detailed in separate sections. The promontory of Sabbioncello, or Punta di Stagno, juts out for 41 m. into the sea between Curzola and Lesina, making it almost like another island, as its width never exceeds 5 m. and narrows to around 1 m. at the thin isthmus connecting it to the mainland. There are two small ports on this isthmus—Stagno Grande (Serbo-Croatian, Ston Veliki) on the south, once famous for its salt and shipbuilding industries, and Stagno Piccolo (Ston Mali) on the north. Dalmatia offers a stunning anchorage in the Bocche di Cattaro, along with numerous smaller harbors at Sebenico, Traù, Zara, and other locations along the coast and among the islands.

The country is almost everywhere hilly or mountainous. On the Croatian border rises the lofty barrier of the Velebit, which culminates in Sveto Brdo (5751 ft.), and Vakanski Vrh (5768 ft.). The Dinaric Alps form the frontier between Dalmatia and Bosnia; Dinara (6007 ft.), which gives its name to the whole chain, and Troglav (6276 ft.), being the highest Dalmatian summits. North-west of Sinj rise the Svilaja and Moseć Planinas; the ridges of Mosor and Biokovo, with Sveto Juraj (5781 ft.), follow the windings of the coast from Spalato to Macarsca; Orjen marks the meeting-place of the Herzegovinian, Montenegrin and Dalmatian frontiers, and the Sutorman range appears in the extreme south. The barren dry limestone of the Dalmatian highlands has been aptly compared with a petrified sponge; for it is honeycombed with underground caverns and water-courses, into which the rainfall is at once filtered. Thus arises a complete system of subterranean rivers, with waterfalls, lakes and regular seasons of flood. Even the few surface rivers vanish and emerge again at intervals. The Trebinjčica, for instance, disappearing in Herzegovina, supplies both the broad and swift estuary of Ombla, near Ragusa, and the fresh-water spring of Doli, which issues from the bottom of the sea. Apart from the Ombla, and the Narenta (Serbo-Croatian, Neretva; Roman, Naro), which creates a broad marshy delta between Metković and the sea, Dalmatia has only three rivers more than 25 m. long; the Zermagna (Zrmanja, Tedanium), Kerka, (Krka, Titius), and Cetina (Cetina; Narona or Tilurus). The Zermagna skirts the southern foothills of the Velebit and falls into the harbour of Novigrad. Better known is the Kerka, which rises in the Dinaric Alps and flows south-westward to the Adriatic. Near Scardona (Skradin) it spreads into a broad lake, and forms several fine waterfalls, after receiving its tributary the Cikola (Čikola), from the east. South of Spalato, the Cetina, which also springs from the Dinaric Alps, descends to the sea at Almissa (Omiš), after passing between the Mosor and Biokovo ranges. There are a few small lakes near Zara, Zaravecchia and the Narenta estuary; while the fertile, but unhealthy, hollows among the mountains fill with water after heavy rain, and sometimes cause disastrous floods. But most parts of the country suffer from drought.

The country is mostly hilly or mountainous. On the Croatian border, the towering Velebit range rises, peaking at Sveto Brdo (5,751 ft.) and Vakanski Vrh (5,768 ft.). The Dinaric Alps mark the boundary between Dalmatia and Bosnia, with Dinara (6,007 ft.), which gives its name to the entire range, and Troglav (6,276 ft.) being the highest summits in Dalmatia. Northwest of Sinj, the Svilaja and Moseć mountains rise; the Mosor and Biokovo ridges, including Sveto Juraj (5,781 ft.), follow the coastline from Split to Makarska. Orjen is the point where the borders of Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Dalmatia meet, and the Sutorman range appears in the far south. The dry, barren limestone of the Dalmatian highlands has been compared to a petrified sponge because it’s full of underground caves and water channels, which filter rainfall immediately. This creates a complete system of underground rivers, with waterfalls, lakes, and regular flood seasons. Even the few surface rivers disappear and reappear at intervals. For example, the Trebinjčica vanishes in Herzegovina but supplies both the wide and fast estuary of Ombla, near Dubrovnik, and the freshwater spring of Doli, which comes out from the bottom of the sea. Besides the Ombla and the Narenta (in Serbo-Croatian, Neretva; in Roman, Naro), which creates a broad marshy delta between Metković and the sea, Dalmatia has only three rivers longer than 25 m: the Zermagna (Zrmanja, Tedanium), Kerka (Krka, Titius), and Cetina (Cetina; Narona or Tilurus). The Zermagna runs along the southern foothills of the Velebit and flows into the harbor of Novigrad. More well-known is the Kerka, which flows southwestward from the Dinaric Alps to the Adriatic, spreading into a large lake near Štitar (Skradin) and forming several beautiful waterfalls after it receives the Cikola (Čikola) tributary from the east. South of Split, the Cetina also springs from the Dinaric Alps and flows into the sea at Omiš after passing between the Mosor and Biokovo ranges. There are a few small lakes near Zadar, Zaravecchia, and the Narenta estuary; while the fertile but unhealthy valleys among the mountains fill with water after heavy rains, occasionally causing severe floods. However, much of the country experiences drought.

For an account of the chief geological formations see Balkan Peninsula. Small quantities of iron, lignite, asphalt and bay salt are the only minerals of commercial importance.

For an overview of the main geological formations, see Balkan Peninsula. The only minerals of commercial significance are small amounts of iron, lignite, asphalt, and bay salt.

The climate is warm and healthy, the mean temperature at Zara being 57° F., at Lesina 62°, and at Ragusa 63°. The prevailing wind is the sirocco, or S.E.; but the terrible Bora, or N.N.E., may blow at any season of the year. The average annual rainfall is about 28 in., but a dry and a wet year usually alternate.

The climate is warm and healthy, with an average temperature of 57°F in Zara, 62°F in Lesina, and 63°F in Ragusa. The prevailing wind is the sirocco, or southeast; however, the fierce Bora, or northeast, can occur at any time of the year. The average annual rainfall is around 28 inches, but typically, a dry year alternates with a wet year.

Fauna.—Bears, badgers and wild cats, with a larger number of wolves and foxes, find shelter in the Dinaric Alps and on the heights of Svilaja, Mosor and Biokovo; while jackals exist on Curzola and Sabbioncello, almost their last refuges in Europe. Roedeer are uncommon, and the wild boar, chamois, red-deer and beaver are extinct; but hares and rabbits abound. The game-laws are not strict, and are often evaded by the Morlachs; but moderate sport may be obtained in the fens formed by the Cetina about Sinj, and the lagoons of the Narenta estuary; both regions being frequented by wild swans, geese, duck, snipe and other aquatic birds. Among land-birds, the commonest are quails, woodcock, partridges, and especially the so-called “stone-fowl” (Steinhuhn, Perdix Graeca). Tortoises are numerous; snakes, lizards, scorpions and innumerable sand-flies infest the dry hillsides; and the limestone caverns are peopled by sightless bats, reptiles, fish, flies, beetles, spiders, crustacea and molluscs.

Fauna.—Bears, badgers, and wildcats, along with a larger population of wolves and foxes, find shelter in the Dinaric Alps and on the heights of Svilaja, Mosor, and Biokovo; while jackals are found on Curzola and Sabbioncello, which are nearly their last refuges in Europe. Roedeer are rare, and wild boar, chamois, red deer, and beaver are extinct; however, hares and rabbits are plentiful. The hunting laws are not strict, and are often bypassed by the Morlachs; but moderate hunting can be found in the marshes formed by the Cetina around Sinj, and the lagoons of the Narenta estuary; both areas are frequented by wild swans, geese, ducks, snipe, and other waterfowl. Among land birds, the most common are quails, woodcock, partridges, and especially the so-called “stone-fowl” (Steinhuhn, Perdix Graeca). Tortoises are numerous; snakes, lizards, scorpions, and countless sandflies infest the dry hillsides; and the limestone caves are inhabited by blind bats, reptiles, fish, flies, beetles, spiders, crustaceans, and mollusks.

Fisheries.—No region of Europe is richer in its marine fauna and flora. Sponge and coral fisheries afford a valuable source of 773 income to the peasantry, many of whom also go northward for the sardine and tunny fisheries of the Istrian coast, while salmon, trout and eels are caught in the Dalmatian rivers.

Fisheries.—No part of Europe has a richer variety of marine life and plants. Sponge and coral fishing provides a valuable source of income for local communities, many of whom also head north for the sardine and tuna fisheries along the Istrian coast, while salmon, trout, and eels are caught in the rivers of Dalmatia.

Flora.—The olive, almond, fig, orange, palm, aloe, myrtle, locust-tree and other characteristic members of the Mediterranean flora thrive in the sheltered valleys of the Dalmatian littoral, where almond-blossoms appear in mid-winter, and the palm occasionally bears ripe fruit. The marasca, or wild cherry, is abundant, and yields the celebrated liqueur called maraschino. But at a little distance from the rivers and on the more exposed parts of the coast the aspect of the country changes entirely. Patches of thin grass, heather, juniper, thyme, tamarisks and mountain roses hardly relieve the bareness and aridity of the seaward slopes.

Flora.—The olive, almond, fig, orange, palm, aloe, myrtle, locust tree, and other typical members of the Mediterranean flora thrive in the sheltered valleys of the Dalmatian coast, where almond blossoms appear in mid-winter, and palm trees sometimes bear ripe fruit. The marasca, or wild cherry, is plentiful and produces the famous liqueur known as maraschino. However, a short distance from the rivers and on the more exposed areas of the coast, the landscape changes completely. Patches of thin grass, heather, juniper, thyme, tamarisks, and mountain roses hardly make a dent in the starkness and dryness of the seaward slopes.

Forests.—Oaks, pines and beeches still, in a few parts, clothe the landward slopes, but, as a rule, the forests for which Dalmatia was once famous were cut down for the Venetian shipyards or burned by pirates; while every attempt at replanting is frustrated by the shallowness of the soil, the drought and the multitude of goats that browse on the young trees.

Forests.—Oaks, pines, and beeches still cover some of the landward slopes, but generally, the forests that made Dalmatia famous were either cut down for the Venetian shipyards or burned by pirates. Every effort to replant is hindered by shallow soil, drought, and the numerous goats that feed on the young trees.

Agriculture.—Little more than one-tenth of the whole surface is under the plough; the rest, where it is not altogether sterile, being chiefly mountain pasture, vineyards and garden land. Asses are the favourite beasts of burden; goats are strikingly numerous; and sheep are kept for the sake of their mutton, which is almost the only animal food freely consumed by the peasantry. Cattle-breeding, bee-keeping, and the cultivation of fruit and vegetables, especially potatoes and beetroot, are among the principal resources of the people, while wheat, rye, barley, oats, Indian corn, hemp and millet are also grown. Viticulture is carried on with great and increasing success (see Wine).

Agriculture.—Only about one-tenth of the entire land is used for farming; the rest, where it's not completely barren, consists mainly of mountain pastures, vineyards, and gardens. Donkeys are the preferred pack animals; goats are very common; and sheep are raised mainly for their meat, which is nearly the only animal protein the local population regularly eats. Raising cattle, keeping bees, and growing fruits and vegetables, especially potatoes and beets, are some of the key resources for the community, and they also grow wheat, rye, barley, oats, corn, hemp, and millet. Wine production is thriving and growing more successful (see Wine).

Land-tenure.—Individual proprietorship of the soil is rare, for, despite the decadence of the zadruga or household community, the tenure of land and the privilege of using the communal domain still appertain to the family as a whole. There are a few large estates, but most of the land is parcelled out in small holdings.

Land-tenure.—Individual ownership of land is uncommon, as, despite the decline of the zadruga or household community, the rights to land and the ability to use communal land still belong to the entire family. There are some large estates, but most of the land is divided into small plots.

Industries.—Besides fishing, farming and such allied trades as shipbuilding, wine and oil pressing, and the distillation of spirits, notably maraschino, a few other industries are practised, such as tile-burning and the manufacture of soap; but these are of minor importance. Certain crafts are also carried on by the country-folk, in their own homes; thus the peasant is sometimes his own mason, carpenter, weaver and miller. Manufactured goods and foodstuffs are imported, in return for asphalt, lignite, bay salt, wine, spirits, oil, honey, wax and hides; and there is a lucrative transit trade with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Turkey and various Adriatic and Mediterranean ports.

Industries.—Besides fishing, farming, and related trades like shipbuilding, wine and oil pressing, and distilling spirits, especially maraschino, a few other industries are practiced, such as tile-making and soap production; however, these are less significant. Certain crafts are also performed by the rural people in their own homes; for instance, a peasant might take on roles as his own mason, carpenter, weaver, and miller. Manufactured goods and food items are imported in exchange for asphalt, lignite, bay salt, wine, spirits, oil, honey, wax, and hides; plus, there is a profitable transit trade with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Turkey, and various ports in the Adriatic and Mediterranean.

Communications.—Communications are defective, some parts of the interior being only accessible by the roughest of mountain roads. The principal railway, in point of size, traverses the central districts, linking together Knin, Spalato, Sebenico and Sinj; but the southern lines, which unite Dalmatia with Herzegovina and terminate at Ragusa, Metković and Castlenuovo on the Bocche di Cattaro, are almost of equal importance, Cattaro being one of the chief outlets for Montenegrin commerce, while the vessels which steam up the Narenta to Metković carry the bulk of the sea-borne trade of Herzegovina. In 1897 Dalmatia possessed 151 post and 98 telegraph offices.

Communications.—The communication infrastructure is lacking, with some areas only reachable via the roughest mountain roads. The main railway, in terms of size, runs through the central regions, connecting Knin, Split, Šibenik, and Sinj; however, the southern lines that link Dalmatia to Herzegovina and end at Dubrovnik, Metković, and Castelnuovo on the Bay of Kotor are nearly as significant. Kotor serves as a major port for Montenegrin trade, while the boats that travel up the Neretva River to Metković handle most of the maritime trade for Herzegovina. In 1897, Dalmatia had 151 post offices and 98 telegraph offices.

Chief Towns.—The chief towns are Zara, the capital, with 32,5062 inhabitants in 1900, Spalato (27,198), Sebenico (24,751), Traù (17,064), Ragusa (13,174), Macarsca (11,016), and Cattaro (5418). All these are described under separate headings.

Chief Towns.—The major towns are Zara, the capital, with 32,5062 residents in 1900, Spalato (27,198), Sebenico (24,751), Traù (17,064), Ragusa (13,174), Macarsca (11,016), and Cattaro (5,418). Each of these towns is detailed under separate headings.

Population and National Characteristics.—With a constant excess of male over female children, the population increased steadily from 1869 to 1900, when it reached 591,597. Of this total 1% are foreigners and about 3% Italians, whose numbers tend slowly to diminish. The Morlachs, who constitute the remaining 96%, belong to the Serbo-Croatian branch of the Slavonic race, having absorbed the Latinized Illyrians, Albanians and other alien elements with which they have been associated. The name of Morlachs, Morlaks or Morlacks commonly bestowed by English writers on the Dalmatian Slavs, though sometimes restricted to the peasantry of the hills, is an abbreviated form of Mavrovlachi, meaning either “Black Vlachs,” or, less probably, “Sea Vlachs.” It was originally applied to the scattered remnants of the Latin or Latinized inhabitants of central Illyria, who were driven from their homes by the barbarian invaders during the 7th century, and took refuge among the mountains. Throughout the middle ages the Mavrovlachi were usually nomadic shepherds, cattle-drovers or muleteers. In the 14th century they emigrated from central Illyria into northern Dalmatia and maritime Croatia; and these regions were thenceforward known as Morlacchia, until the 18th century. Gradually, however, the Mavrovlachi became identified with the Slavs, whose language and manners they adopted, and to whom they gave their own name. In northern Dalmatia the Slavs of the interior are still called Morlacchi; in the south this name expresses contempt. Of the Vlachs, properly so called, very few are left in the country; although the name Vlachs (q.v.) is frequently used by the Slavs to designate the Italians and the town-dwellers generally. The literary languages of Dalmatia are Italian and Serbo-Croatian; the spoken language is, in each case, modified by the introduction of various dialect forms.

Population and National Characteristics.—With a consistent surplus of male over female children, the population grew steadily from 1869 to 1900, reaching 591,597. Of this total, 1% are foreigners and about 3% are Italians, whose numbers are slowly declining. The Morlachs, who make up the remaining 96%, belong to the Serbo-Croatian branch of the Slavic race, having absorbed the Latinized Illyrians, Albanians, and other foreign groups they've interacted with. The term Morlachs, Morlaks, or Morlacks commonly used by English writers to refer to the Dalmatian Slavs, though sometimes limited to the peasantry of the hills, is a shortened version of Mavrovlachi, which means either “Black Vlachs” or, less likely, “Sea Vlachs.” It was originally used for the scattered remnants of the Latin or Latinized inhabitants of central Illyria who were driven from their homes by barbarian invaders during the 7th century and took shelter in the mountains. During the Middle Ages, the Mavrovlachi were mostly nomadic shepherds, cattle drovers, or mule drivers. In the 14th century, they migrated from central Illyria into northern Dalmatia and coastal Croatia; these areas were known as Morlacchia until the 18th century. However, over time, the Mavrovlachi became associated with the Slavs, adopting their language and customs, and the Slavs came to refer to them by their name. In northern Dalmatia, the Slavs in the interior are still called Morlacchi; in the south, this term carries a derogatory connotation. Few Vlachs, properly speaking, remain in the country; however, the name Vlachs (q.v.) is often used by the Slavs to refer to Italians and urban dwellers in general. The literary languages of Dalmatia are Italian and Serbo-Croatian; the spoken language in each case features various dialect modifications.

The Morlachs wear a picturesque and brightly-coloured costume, resembling that of the Serbs (see Servia). In appearance they are sometimes blond, with blue or grey eyes, like the Shumadian peasantry of Servia; more often, olive-skinned, with dark hair and eyes, like the Montenegrins, whom they rival in stature, strength and courage; while their conservative spirit, their devotion to national traditions, poetry and music, their pride, indolence and superstition, are typically Servian. Dalmatian public life is deeply affected by the jealousies which subsist between the Slavs and the Italians, whose influence, though everywhere waning, remains predominant in some of the towns; and between Orthodox “Serbs,” who use the Cyrillic alphabet, and Roman Catholic “Croats,” who prefer the Latin.

The Morlachs wear a striking and colorful costume, similar to that of the Serbs (see Servia). In terms of appearance, they can be blonde with blue or gray eyes, like the Shumadian peasants of Serbia; more often, they have olive skin, dark hair, and dark eyes, resembling the Montenegrins, with whom they share traits in stature, strength, and bravery. Their conservative nature, devotion to national traditions, poetry, and music, along with their pride, laziness, and superstitions, are distinctly Serbian. Dalmatian public life is heavily influenced by the rivalries between the Slavs and the Italians, whose influence, although declining, remains strong in some towns; and between Orthodox “Serbs,” who use the Cyrillic alphabet, and Roman Catholic “Croats,” who prefer the Latin.

Government.—Dalmatia occupies a somewhat anomalous position in the Austro-Hungarian state system. Itself a crownland of Austria, returning eleven members to the Austrian parliament, it is severed geographically from the other Austrian lands by the Hungarian kingdom of Croatia. Ethnologically it is one with Croatia, and it is included in the official title of the Croatian king, i.e. the emperor. The political system is based on a law of the 26th of February 1861. The provincial diet is composed of 43 members, comprising the Roman Catholic archbishop, the Orthodox bishop of Zara and representatives of the chief taxpayers, the towns and the communes. Benkovac, on the main road from Zara to Spalato, Cattaro, Curzola, Imotski, 21 m. N. by E. of Macarsca, Knin, Lesina, Macarsca, Ragusa, Sebenico, Sinj, Spalato and Zara, give names to the twelve administrative districts, of which they are the capitals.

Government.—Dalmatia holds a unique position within the Austro-Hungarian state system. Being a crownland of Austria, it sends eleven representatives to the Austrian parliament, but it is geographically separated from the other Austrian regions by the Hungarian kingdom of Croatia. Ethnically, it is aligned with Croatia and is recognized in the official title of the Croatian king, who is also the emperor. The political system is based on a law enacted on February 26, 1861. The provincial assembly consists of 43 members, including the Roman Catholic archbishop, the Orthodox bishop of Zara, and representatives of major taxpayers, towns, and local communities. Benkovac, located on the main route from Zara to Spalato, along with Cattaro, Curzola, Imotski, 21 miles northeast of Macarsca, Knin, Lesina, Macarsca, Ragusa, Sebenico, Sinj, Spalato, and Zara, are the names of the twelve administrative districts that they serve as capitals.

Defence.—Conscription is in force, as elsewhere in Austria, and the Dalmatian coast furnishes the Austrian—as formerly the Venetian—navy with many of its best recruits.

Defense.—Conscription is active, just like in other parts of Austria, and the Dalmatian coast provides the Austrian—just like it used to for the Venetian—navy with many of its best recruits.

Religion.—Roman Catholicism is the religion of more than 80% of the population, the remainder belonging chiefly to the Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic archbishop has his seat in Zara, while Cattaro, Lesina, Ragusa, Sebenico and Spalato are bishoprics. At the head of the Orthodox community stands the bishop of Zara.

Religion.—Roman Catholicism is the religion of over 80% of the population, with the rest mostly belonging to the Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic archbishop is based in Zara, while Cattaro, Lesina, Ragusa, Sebenico, and Spalato are all bishoprics. The bishop of Zara leads the Orthodox community.

The use of Slavonic liturgies written in the Glagolitic alphabet, a very ancient privilege of the Roman Catholics in Dalmatia and Croatia, caused much controversy during the first years of the 20th century. There was considerable danger that the Latin liturgies would be altogether superseded by the Glagolitic, especially among the northern islands and in rural communes, where the Slavonic element is all-powerful. In 1904 the Vatican forbade the use of Glagolitic at the festival of SS. Cyril and 774 Methodius, as likely to impair the unity of Catholicism. A few years previously the Slavonic archbishop Rajčević of Zara, in discussing the “Glagolitic controversy,” had denounced the movement as “an innovation introduced by Panslavism to make it easy for the Catholic clergy, after any great revolution in the Balkan States, to break with Latin Rome.” This view is shared by very many, perhaps by the majority, of the Roman Catholics in Dalmatia.

The use of Slavonic liturgies written in the Glagolitic alphabet, a very old privilege of Roman Catholics in Dalmatia and Croatia, sparked a lot of controversy in the early 20th century. There was a significant risk that Latin liturgies would be completely replaced by the Glagolitic, especially in the northern islands and rural communities, where the Slavonic presence is dominant. In 1904, the Vatican banned the use of Glagolitic during the SS. Cyril and Methodius festival, claiming it could undermine the unity of Catholicism. A few years earlier, the Slavonic archbishop Rajčević of Zara had criticized the “Glagolitic controversy,” labeling the movement as “an innovation introduced by Panslavism to help Catholic clergy, after any major revolution in the Balkan States, to separate from Latin Rome.” This perspective is held by many, possibly by the majority, of Roman Catholics in Dalmatia.

Education.—Education progressed slowly between 1860 and 1900, attendance at school being often a hardship in the poor and widely scattered hamlets of the interior. In 1890 more than 80% of the population could neither read nor write, although schools are maintained by every commune. In 1893 the country possessed 5 intermediate and 337 elementary schools, 6 theological seminaries, 6 gymnasia, and about 40 continuation and technical schools.

Education.—Education advanced slowly between 1860 and 1900, with attending school often being a struggle for those in the impoverished and widely spread-out villages. In 1890, over 80% of the population couldn't read or write, despite every community maintaining schools. By 1893, the country had 5 intermediate and 337 elementary schools, 6 theological seminaries, 6 grammar schools, and around 40 continuation and technical schools.

Antiquities.—To the foreign visitor Dalmatia is chiefly interesting as a treasury of art and antiquities. The grave-mounds of Curzola, Lesina and Sabbioncello have yielded a few relics of prehistoric man, and the memory of the early Celtic conquerors and Greek settlers is preserved only in a few place-names; but the monuments left by the Romans are numerous and precious. They are chiefly confined to the cities; for the civilization of the country was always urban, just as its history is a record of isolated city-states rather than of a united nation. Beyond the walls of its larger towns, little was spared by the barbarian Goths, Avars and Slavs; and the battered fragments of Roman work which mark the sites of Salona, near Spalato, and of many other ancient cities, are of slight antiquarian interest and slighter artistic value. Among the monuments of the Roman period, by far the most noteworthy in Dalmatia, and, indeed, in the whole Balkan Peninsula, is the Palace of Diocletian at Spalato (q.v.). Dalmatian architecture was Byzantine in its general character from the 6th century until the close of the 10th. The oldest memorials of this period are the vestiges of three basilicas, excavated in Salona, and dating from the first half of the 7th century at latest. Byzantine art, in the latter half of this period and the two succeeding centuries, continued to flourish in those cities which, like Zara, gave their allegiance to Venice; just as, in the architecture of Traù and other cities dominated by Hungary, there are distinct traces of German influence. The belfry of S. Maria, at Zara, erected in 1105, is first in a long list of Romanesque buildings. At Arbe there is a beautiful Romanesque campanile which also belongs to the 12th century; but the finest example in this style is the cathedral of Traù. The 14th century Dominican and Franciscan convents in Ragusa are also noteworthy. Romanesque lingered on in Dalmatia until it was displaced by Venetian Gothic in the early years of the 15th century. The influence of Venice was then at its height. Even in the hostile republic of Ragusa the Romanesque of the custom-house and Rectors’ palace is combined with Venetian Gothic, while the graceful balconies and ogee windows of the Prijeki closely follow their Venetian models. Gothic, however, which had been adopted very late, was abandoned very early; for in 1441 Giorgio Orsini of Zara, summoned from Venice to design the cathedral of Sebenico, brought with him the influence of the Italian Renaissance. The new forms which he introduced were eagerly imitated and developed by other architects, until the period of decadence—which virtually concludes the history of Dalmatian art—set in during the latter half of the 17th century. Special mention must be made of the carved woodwork, embroideries and plate preserved in many churches. The silver statuette and the reliquary of St Biagio at Ragusa, and the silver ark of St Simeon at Zara, are fine specimens of Byzantine and Italian jewellers’ work, ranging in date from the 11th or 12th to the 17th century.

Antiquities.—To foreign visitors, Dalmatia is mainly interesting as a treasure trove of art and antiquities. The burial mounds of Curzola, Lesina, and Sabbioncello have revealed a few relics of prehistoric humans, and memories of early Celtic conquerors and Greek settlers are preserved only in a few place names; however, the monuments left by the Romans are numerous and valuable. They are mainly found in the cities; the country’s civilization has always been urban, much like its history, which is a record of isolated city-states rather than a unified nation. Outside the walls of its larger towns, little was left intact by the barbarian Goths, Avars, and Slavs; the damaged remnants of Roman works at the sites of Salona, near Spalato, and many other ancient cities hold only minimal interest for antiquarians and even less artistic value. Among the monuments from the Roman period, the most significant in Dalmatia, and indeed the entire Balkan Peninsula, is the Palace of Diocletian at Spalato (q.v.). Dalmatian architecture was primarily Byzantine from the 6th century until the end of the 10th. The oldest remains from this period are the remains of three basilicas excavated in Salona, dating from at least the first half of the 7th century. Byzantine art continued to thrive in cities like Zara, which pledged allegiance to Venice, during the latter half of this period and the next two centuries; similarly, in the architecture of Traù and other cities influenced by Hungary, there are clear signs of German impact. The bell tower of S. Maria in Zara, built in 1105, is the first of a long list of Romanesque buildings. At Arbe, there's a stunning Romanesque campanile that also belongs to the 12th century; however, the finest example of this style is the cathedral in Traù. The Dominican and Franciscan convents from the 14th century in Ragusa are also notable. Romanesque styles remained in Dalmatia until they were replaced by Venetian Gothic in the early 15th century, when Venice’s influence peaked. Even in the rival republic of Ragusa, the Romanesque style of the custom-house and Rectors’ palace is combined with Venetian Gothic, while the elegant balconies and ogee windows of the Prijeki closely follow Venetian designs. Gothic architecture, however, which was adopted quite late, was abandoned very early; in 1441, Giorgio Orsini from Zara, called from Venice to design the cathedral of Sebenico, brought with him the influence of the Italian Renaissance. The new styles he introduced were eagerly copied and evolved by other architects until the decline—which effectively concludes the history of Dalmatian art—set in during the latter half of the 17th century. Special attention should be given to the carved woodwork, embroideries, and silverware preserved in many churches. The silver statuette and reliquary of St Biagio at Ragusa, and the silver ark of St Simeon at Zara, are excellent examples of Byzantine and Italian goldsmiths' work, dating from the 11th or 12th to the 17th century.

History

History

Dalmatia under Roman Rule, A.D. 9-1102.—The history of Dalmatia may be said to begin with the year 180 B.C., when the tribe from which the country derives its name declared itself independent of Gentius, the Illyrian king, and established a republic. Its capital was Delminium3; its territory stretched northwards from the Narenta to the Cetina, and later to the Kerka, where it met the confines of Liburnia. In 156 B.C. the Dalmatians were for the first time attacked by a Roman army and compelled to pay tribute; but only in the time of Augustus (31 B.C.-A.D. 14) was their land finally annexed, after the last of many formidable revolts had been crushed by Tiberius in A.D. 9. This event was followed by total submission and a ready acceptance of the Latin civilization which overspread Illyria (q.v.). The downfall of the Western Empire left this region subject to Gothic rulers, Odoacer and Theodoric, from 476 to 535, when it was added by Justinian to the Eastern Empire. The great Slavonic migration into Illyria, which wrought a complete change in the fortunes of Dalmatia, took place in the first half of the 7th century. In other parts of the Balkan Peninsula these invaders—Serbs, Croats or Bulgars—found little difficulty in expelling or absorbing the native population. But here they were baffled when confronted by the powerful maritime city-states, highly civilized, and able to rely on the moral if not the material support of their kinsfolk in Italy. Consequently, while the country districts were settled by the Slavs, the Latin or Italian population flocked for safety to Ragusa, Zara and other large towns, and the whole country was thus divided between two frequently hostile communities. This opposition was intensified by the schism between Eastern and Western Christianity (1054), the Slavs as a rule preferring the Orthodox or sometimes the Bogomil creed, while the Italians were firmly attached to the Papacy. Not until the 15th century did the rival races contribute to a common civilization in the literature of Ragusa. To such a division of population may be attributed the two dominant characteristics of local history—the total absence of national as distinguished from civic life, and the remarkable development of art, science and literature. Bosnia, Servia and Bulgaria had each its period of national greatness, but remained intellectually backward; Dalmatia failed ever to attain political or racial unity, but the Dalmatian city-states, isolated and compelled to look to Italy for support, shared perforce in the march of Italian civilization. Their geographical position suffices to explain the relatively small influence exercised by Byzantine culture throughout the six centuries (535-1102) during which Dalmatia was part of the Eastern empire. Towards the close of this period Byzantine rule tended more and more to become merely nominal. In 806 Dalmatia was added to the Holy Roman empire, but was soon restored; in 829 the coast was ravaged by Saracens. A strange republic of Servian pirates arose at the mouth of the Narenta. In the 10th century description of Dalmatia by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De Administrando Imperio, 29-37), this region is called Pagania, from the fact that its inhabitants had only accepted Christianity about 890, or 250 years later than the other Slavs. These Pagani, or Arentani (Narentines), utterly defeated a Venetian fleet despatched against them in 887, and for more than a century exacted tribute from Venice itself. In 998 they were finally crushed by the doge Pietro Orseolo II., who assumed the title duke of Dalmatia, though without prejudice to Byzantine suzerainty. Meanwhile the Croatian kings had extended their rule over northern and central Dalmatia, exacting tribute from the Italian cities, Traù, Zara and others, and consolidating their own power in the purely Slavonic towns, such as Nona or Belgrad (Zaravecchia). The Church was involved in the general confusion; for the synod of Spalato, in 1059, had forbidden the use of any but Greek or Latin liturgies, and so had accentuated the differences between Latin and Slav. A raid of Norman corsairs in 1073 was hardly defeated with the help of a Venetian fleet.

Dalmatia under Roman Rule, A.D. 9-1102.—The history of Dalmatia is generally considered to start in 180 B.C., when the tribe that gave the region its name declared its independence from Gentius, the Illyrian king, and set up a republic. Its capital was Delminium3; its territory extended north from the Narenta River to the Cetina and later to the Kerka, where it bordered Liburnia. In 156 B.C., the Dalmatians were first attacked by a Roman army and forced to pay tribute; however, it wasn’t until the reign of Augustus (31 B.C.-A.D. 14) that their land was fully annexed, following the defeat of the last significant rebellion by Tiberius in A.D. 9. This led to complete submission and a quick acceptance of Latin culture, which spread throughout Illyria (q.v.). After the fall of the Western Empire, this region was ruled by Gothic leaders Odoacer and Theodoric from 476 to 535, when Justinian added it to the Eastern Empire. The major Slav migration into Illyria, which dramatically changed Dalmatia's fate, occurred in the first half of the 7th century. In other parts of the Balkan Peninsula, these invaders—Serbs, Croats, or Bulgars—had little trouble driving out or absorbing the native populations. However, they faced challenges from the strong maritime city-states here, which were well-civilized and could rely on the moral, if not material, support from their relatives in Italy. As a result, while the rural areas were settled by Slavs, the Latin or Italian population sought refuge in Ragusa, Zara, and other large cities, leading to a split between two often hostile communities. This division was deepened by the divide between Eastern and Western Christianity (1054), with the Slavs generally favoring the Orthodox or occasionally the Bogomil faith, while the Italians remained loyal to the Papacy. It wasn't until the 15th century that these rival groups started contributing to a shared civilization in the literature of Ragusa. This separation helps explain two key aspects of local history: the complete lack of national, as opposed to civic, life, and the impressive progress in art, science, and literature. Bosnia, Servia, and Bulgaria each experienced their own periods of national greatness, but remained intellectually stagnant; Dalmatia never achieved political or racial unity, yet the Dalmatian city-states, isolated and reliant on Italian support, naturally participated in the spread of Italian civilization. Their geographical location accounts for the relatively minor impact of Byzantine culture throughout the six centuries (535-1102) that Dalmatia was part of the Eastern Empire. By the end of this period, Byzantine rule was increasingly becoming just a formality. In 806, Dalmatia was included in the Holy Roman Empire but was quickly restored; in 829, the coast was raided by Saracens. A peculiar republic of Serbian pirates emerged at the mouth of the Narenta. In the 10th-century account of Dalmatia by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De Administrando Imperio, 29-37), the region is referred to as Pagania, because its inhabitants only accepted Christianity around 890, about 250 years later than the other Slavs. These Pagani, or Arentani (Narentines), decisively defeated a Venetian fleet sent against them in 887 and for over a century required tribute from Venice itself. In 998, they were ultimately defeated by Doge Pietro Orseolo II, who took the title Duke of Dalmatia, though this didn’t affect Byzantine suzerainty. Meanwhile, Croatian kings expanded their control over northern and central Dalmatia, demanding tribute from Italian cities like Traù, Zara, and others, while strengthening their power in purely Slavic towns such as Nona or Belgrad (Zaravecchia). The Church was caught up in this general disorder; the synod of Spalato in 1059 had prohibited the use of any liturgies other than Greek or Latin, further emphasizing the distinctions between Latin and Slavic. A raid by Norman pirates in 1073 was hardly repelled with the assistance of a Venetian fleet.

775

775

Rivalry of Venice and Hungary in Dalmatia, 1102-1420.—Unable amid such dissensions to stand alone, unprotected by the Eastern empire and hindered by their internal dissensions from uniting in a defensive league, the city-states turned to Venice and Hungary for support. The Venetians, to whom they were already bound by race, language and culture, could afford to concede liberal terms because their own principal aims was not the territorial aggrandizement sought by Hungary, but only such a supremacy as might prevent the development of any dangerous political or commercial competitor on the eastern Adriatic. Hungary had also its partisans; for in the Dalmatian city-states, like those of Greece and Italy, there were almost invariably two jealous political factions, each ready to oppose any measure advocated by its antagonist. The origin of this division seems here to have been economic. The farmers and the merchants who traded in the interior naturally favoured Hungary, their most powerful neighbour on land; while the seafaring community looked to Venice as mistress of the Adriatic. In return for protection, the cities often furnished a contingent to the army or navy of their suzerain, and sometimes paid tribute either in money or in kind. Arbe, for example, annually paid ten pounds of silk or five pounds of gold to Venice. The citizens clung to their municipal privileges, which were reaffirmed after the conquest of Dalmatia in 1102-1105 by Coloman of Hungary. Subject to the royal assent they might elect their own chief magistrate, bishop and judges. Their Roman law remained valid. They were even permitted to conclude separate alliances. No alien, not even a Hungarian, could reside in a city where he was unwelcome; and the man who disliked Hungarian dominion could emigrate with all his household and property. In lieu of tribute, the revenue from customs was in some cases shared equally by the king, chief magistrate, bishop and municipality. These rights and the analogous privileges granted by Venice were, however, too frequently infringed, Hungarian garrisons being quartered on unwilling towns, while Venice interfered with trade, with the appointment of bishops, or with the tenure of communal domains. Consequently the Dalmatians remained loyal only while it suited their interests, and insurrections frequently occurred. Even in Zara four outbreaks are recorded between 1180 and 1345, although Zara was treated with special consideration by its Venetian masters, who regarded its possession as essential to their maritime ascendancy. The doubtful allegiance of the Dalmatians tended to protract the struggle between Venice and Hungary, which was further complicated by internal discord due largely to the spread of the Bogomil heresy; and by many outside influences, such as the vague suzerainty still enjoyed by the Eastern emperors during the 12th century; the assistance rendered to Venice by the armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1202; and the Tartar invasion of Dalmatia forty years later (see Traù). The Slavs were no longer regarded as a hostile race, but the power of certain Croatian magnates, notably the counts of Bribir, was from time to time supreme in the northern districts (see Croatia-Slavonia); and Stephen Tvrtko, the founder of the Bosnian kingdom, was able in 1389 to annex the whole Adriatic littoral between Cattaro and Fiume, except Venetian Zara and his own independent ally, Ragusa (see Bosnia and Herzegovina). Finally, the rapid decline of Bosnia, and of Hungary itself when assailed by the Turks, rendered easy the success of Venice; and in 1420 the whole of Dalmatia, except Almissa, which yielded in 1444, and Ragusa, which preserved its freedom, either submitted or was conquered. Many cities welcomed the change with its promise of tranquillity.

Rivalry of Venice and Hungary in Dalmatia, 1102-1420.—Unable to stand alone amid such conflicts, and without protection from the Eastern Empire while also struggling with their internal disagreements, the city-states turned to Venice and Hungary for help. The Venetians, connected to the city-states by race, language, and culture, were able to offer generous terms because their main goal wasn’t the territorial expansion that Hungary sought, but rather the maintenance of a position that would prevent any dangerous political or commercial rivals from emerging in the eastern Adriatic. Hungary also had its supporters; in the Dalmatian city-states, like those in Greece and Italy, there were typically two rival political factions, each ready to oppose anything proposed by the other. This division seems to have originated from economic interests. The farmers and merchants trading inland naturally favored Hungary, their most powerful neighbor on land, while the maritime community looked to Venice as the ruler of the Adriatic. In exchange for protection, the cities often contributed to the army or navy of their overlord and sometimes paid tribute in either money or goods. For instance, Arbe annually paid ten pounds of silk or five pounds of gold to Venice. The citizens were keen to maintain their municipal privileges, which were reaffirmed after the conquest of Dalmatia in 1102-1105 by Coloman of Hungary. With royal approval, they were allowed to elect their own chief magistrate, bishop, and judges. Their Roman law remained valid. They were even permitted to form separate alliances. No foreigner, not even a Hungarian, could live in a city where they weren't welcomed; and those who opposed Hungarian rule could emigrate along with their families and property. Instead of tribute, customs revenue was sometimes shared equally among the king, chief magistrate, bishop, and municipality. However, these rights, along with similar privileges granted by Venice, were often violated, as Hungarian troops were stationed in unwilling towns, and Venice meddled with trade, the appointment of bishops, and the management of communal lands. As a result, the Dalmatians remained loyal only as long as it benefited them, leading to frequent uprisings. Four rebellions are recorded in Zara between 1180 and 1345, even though Zara was given special consideration by its Venetian rulers, who deemed its possession vital for their maritime dominance. The Dalmatians' uncertain loyalty prolonged the conflict between Venice and Hungary, complicated further by internal strife largely due to the spread of the Bogomil heresy, and by various external influences, such as the ambiguous suzerainty exercised by the Eastern emperors in the 12th century, the support Venice received from the armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1202, and the Tartar invasion of Dalmatia forty years later (see Traù). The Slavs were no longer seen as a hostile group, but the influence of certain Croatian nobles, especially the counts of Bribir, frequently dominated the northern regions (see Croatia-Slavonia); and Stephen Tvrtko, who founded the Bosnian kingdom, managed to annex the entire Adriatic coastline between Cattaro and Fiume in 1389, except for Venetian-controlled Zara and his independent ally, Ragusa (see Bosnia and Herzegovina). Ultimately, the quick decline of Bosnia and Hungary itself when facing the Turks made it easier for Venice to succeed; by 1420, the entirety of Dalmatia, except Almissa, which fell in 1444, and Ragusa, which retained its independence, had either submitted or been conquered. Many cities embraced this change with hopes of peace.

Venetian and Turkish Rule, 1420-1797.—An interval of peace ensued, but meanwhile the Turkish advance continued. Constantinople fell in 1453, Servia in 1459, Bosnia in 1463 and Herzegovina in 1483. Thus the Venetian and Ottoman frontiers met; border wars were incessant; Ragusa sought safety in friendship with the invaders. In 1508 the hostile league of Cambrai compelled Venice to withdraw its garrison for home service, and after the overthrow of Hungary at Mohács in 1526 the Turks were able easily to conquer the greater part of Dalmatia. The peace of 1540 left only the maritime cities to Venice, the interior forming a Turkish province, governed from the fortress of Clissa by a Sanjakbeg, or administrator with military powers. Christian Slavs from the neighbouring lands now thronged to the towns, outnumbering the Italian population and introducing their own language, but falling under the influence of the Roman Catholic Church. The pirate community of the Uskoks (q.v.) had originally been a band of these fugitives; its exploits contributed to a renewal of war between Venice and Turkey (1571-1573). An extremely curious picture of contemporary manners is presented by the Venetian agents,4 whose reports on this war resemble some knightly chronicle of the middle ages, full of single combats, tournaments and other chivalrous adventures. They also show clearly that the Dalmatian levies far surpassed the Italian mercenaries in skill and courage. Many of these troops served abroad; at Lepanto, for example, in 1571, a Dalmatian squadron assisted the allied fleets of Spain, Venice, Austria and the Papal States to crush the Turkish navy. A fresh war broke out in 1645, lasting intermittently until 1699, when the peace of Carlowitz gave the whole of Dalmatia to Venice, including the coast of Herzegovina, but excluding the domains of Ragusa and the protecting band of Ottoman territory which surrounded them. After further fighting this delimitation was confirmed in 1718 by the treaty of Passarowitz; and it remains valid, though modified by the destruction of Ragusan liberty and the substitution of Austria-Hungary for Venice and Turkey.

Venetian and Turkish Rule, 1420-1797.—A period of peace followed, but the Turkish expansion continued. Constantinople fell in 1453, Serbia in 1459, Bosnia in 1463, and Herzegovina in 1483. As a result, the Venetian and Ottoman borders met, leading to constant border wars; Ragusa sought safety by forming an alliance with the invaders. In 1508, the hostile coalition of Cambrai forced Venice to pull back its garrison for domestic duties, and after Hungary's defeat at Mohács in 1526, the Turks easily conquered most of Dalmatia. The peace treaty of 1540 left only the coastal cities to Venice, while the interior became a Turkish province, governed from the fortress of Clissa by a Sanjakbeg, or administrator with military authority. Christian Slavs from nearby regions flocked to the towns, outnumbering the Italian population and bringing their own language, while becoming influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. The pirate group known as the Uskoks (q.v.) originally consisted of these refugees; their actions sparked a renewed conflict between Venice and Turkey (1571-1573). The Venetian agents,4 painted a very curious picture of contemporary life, with reports on the war resembling knightly chronicles from the Middle Ages, filled with single combats, tournaments, and other chivalrous adventures. These reports clearly indicated that the Dalmatian troops were far more skilled and brave than the Italian mercenaries. Many of these soldiers fought abroad; for example, at Lepanto in 1571, a Dalmatian squadron helped the allied fleets of Spain, Venice, Austria, and the Papal States to defeat the Turkish navy. A new war broke out in 1645, lasting intermittently until 1699, when the Treaty of Carlowitz granted all of Dalmatia to Venice, including the coast of Herzegovina, but excluding the territories of Ragusa and the protective strip of Ottoman land surrounding them. After further conflicts, this boundary was reaffirmed in 1718 by the Treaty of Passarowitz; and it remains valid, although altered by the end of Ragusan independence and the replacement of Venice and Turkey with Austria-Hungary.

The intellectual life of Dalmatia during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries reached a higher level than any attained by the purely Slavonic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. Its chief monuments are described elsewhere,—the work of the Ragusan poets and historians as a part of Servian literature, the scientific achievements of R. G. Boscovich and Marcantonio de Dominis in separate biographies. Architecture and art generally have been discussed above. But this intellectual development was the work of a small and opulent minority in all the cities except Ragusa. Popular education was neglected; Zara had no printing-press until 1796; Venetian Dalmatia possessed only one public school, and that an ecclesiastical seminary; and even the sons of the rich, though free to visit the universities of Italy, France, Holland and England, ran the risk of exile or worse punishment if they brought home too liberal a culture. Poorer students learned what they could from the clergy, and the peasantry were wholly illiterate. Although the secular power of the Church was strictly limited, the country was overrun by ecclesiastics. When Fortis visited the island of Arbe in the 18th century, he found a population of 3000, mostly fishermen, contributing to the stipends of sixty priests. There were also three monasteries and three nunneries. Heavy taxes, the salt monopoly, reckless destruction of timber, and a deliberate attempt to ruin the oil and silk industries, were among the means by which Venice prevented competition with its own trade. Although justice was fairly well administered and some show of municipal autonomy conceded, the right of electing a chief magistrate had been withheld after 1420; and the Grand Council or Senate of each city, losing its original democratic character, had degenerated into a mere tool of the resident Venetian agents (provveditori), officials who held their post for thirty-two months and were subject to little effective control. Nevertheless, 150 years of war against the common Turkish enemy had drawn the Venetians and their subjects closely together, and the loyalty of the Dalmatian soldiers and sailors abroad, if not of their fellow-citizens at home, rests beyond doubt.

The intellectual life of Dalmatia during the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries surpassed anything achieved by the purely Slavic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. Its major achievements are detailed elsewhere—the works of the Ragusan poets and historians as part of Serbian literature, and the scientific contributions of R. G. Boscovich and Marcantonio de Dominis in separate biographies. Architecture and art have been discussed above. However, this intellectual growth was driven by a small and wealthy minority in all cities except Ragusa. Access to education for the general population was neglected; Zara had no printing press until 1796; Venetian Dalmatia had only one public school, which was a church seminary; and even the sons of affluent families faced exile or worse if they returned home with too progressive ideas after attending universities in Italy, France, Holland, or England. Poorer students learned what they could from the clergy, while the peasant population remained completely illiterate. Although the Church's secular power was tightly controlled, the country was flooded with clergy. When Fortis visited the island of Arbe in the 18th century, he found a community of 3,000, mostly fishermen, supporting the stipends of sixty priests. There were also three monasteries and three nunneries. Heavy taxes, a salt monopoly, careless deforestation, and a calculated effort to undermine the oil and silk industries were some of the tactics Venice employed to eliminate competition with its own trade. Although justice was relatively well administered and some semblance of municipal autonomy was granted, the right to elect a chief magistrate had been revoked after 1420; the Grand Council or Senate of each city lost its original democratic nature and became simply a tool for the Venetian officials known as provveditori, who held their position for thirty-two months with little real oversight. Nevertheless, 150 years of fighting against the common Turkish enemy had brought the Venetians and their subjects closer together, and the loyalty of Dalmatian soldiers and sailors in foreign lands, if not of their fellow citizens at home, is beyond question.

Dalmatia after 1797.—After the fall of the Venetian republic in 1797, the treaty of Campo Formio gave Dalmatia to Austria. The republics of Ragusa and Poglizza retained their independence, and Ragusa grew rich by its neutrality during the earlier Napoleonic wars. By the peace of Pressburg in 1805 the country was handed over to France, but its occupation was ineffectually contested by a Russian force which seized the Bocche di Cattaro and induced the Montenegrins to render aid. Poglizza was 776 deprived of its independence by Napoleon in 1807, Ragusa in 1808. In 1809 the French troops were withdrawn, but in the same year Dalmatia was restored to France and united to the Illyrian kingdom by the treaty of Vienna. A British naval force under Captain Hoste, after a successful engagement with a small French squadron off Lissa, occupied the islands of Curzola, Lesina and Lagosta from 1812 to 1815, and established a considerable overland trade through Dalmatia, Austria and Germany. The allied British and Austrian forces drove out the last French garrison in 1814, and in 1815 Dalmatia was finally incorporated in the Austro-Hungarian empire, with which its history has since been identified. Its subsequent tranquillity has only been disturbed by the ineffectual risings of 1869 and 1881-1882, which took place near Cattaro (q.v.). For an account of the development of Croatian nationalism among the Dalmatians, during the 19th and 20th centuries, see Croatia-Slavonia.

Dalmatia after 1797.—After the fall of the Venetian Republic in 1797, the Treaty of Campo Formio gave Dalmatia to Austria. The republics of Ragusa and Poglizza maintained their independence, with Ragusa becoming wealthy by staying neutral during the earlier Napoleonic wars. By the Peace of Pressburg in 1805, the area was handed over to France, but its occupation was weakly opposed by a Russian force that took the Bocche di Cattaro and got support from the Montenegrins. Poglizza lost its independence to Napoleon in 1807, followed by Ragusa in 1808. In 1809, the French troops left, but that same year, Dalmatia was returned to France and integrated into the Illyrian Kingdom by the Treaty of Vienna. A British naval force led by Captain Hoste, after successfully engaging a small French squadron off Lissa, occupied the islands of Curzola, Lesina, and Lagosta from 1812 to 1815, establishing significant overland trade through Dalmatia, Austria, and Germany. The combined British and Austrian forces expelled the last French garrison in 1814, and in 1815, Dalmatia was finally incorporated into the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which has since been tied to its history. Its later peace was only disturbed by the ineffective uprisings of 1869 and 1881-1882, occurring near Cattaro (q.v.). For an account of the rise of Croatian nationalism among the Dalmatians during the 19th and 20th centuries, see Croatia-Slavonia.

Bibliography.—A minute and accurate account of Dalmatian history, art (especially architecture), antiquities and topography, is given by T. G. Jackson, in Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria (Oxford, 1887), (3 vols. illustrated). E. A. Freeman, Subject and Neighbour Lands of Venice (London, 1881), and G. Modrich, La Dalmazia (Turin, 1892), describe the chief towns, their history and antiquities. Much miscellaneous information is contained in the following mainly topographical works:—P. Bauron, Les Rives illyriennes (Paris, 1888); Sir A. A. Paton, Highlands and Islands of the Adriatic (London, 1849); Sir J. G. Wilkinson, Dalmatia and Montenegro (London, 1840); A. Fortis, Travels into Dalmatia (London, 1778); and the periodicals, Rivista Dalmatica (Zara, 1899, &c.), and Annuario Dalmatico (Zara, 1884, &c.). The best maps are those of the Austrian General Staff and Vincenzo de Haardt’s Zemljovid Kraljevine Dalmacije (Zara, 1892). See also for trade, the Annual British Consular Reports; for sport, “Snaffle,” In the Land of the Bora (London, 1897); for Roman and pre-Roman antiquities, R. Munro, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia (Edinburgh, 1904). Besides the works mentioned above, and those by Farlatus, Makushev, Miklosich, Theiner, Shafarik, Orbini and du Cange, which are quoted under Bosnia and Herzegovina, the chief authority for Dalmatian history is G. Lucio (Lucius of Traù), De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, a gentis origine ad annum 1480 (Amsterdam, 1666). To this edition are appended the works of the Presbyter Diocleas, Thomas of Spalato and other native chroniclers from the 12th century onwards. An Italian translation, omitting the appendix, was published at Trieste in 1892, entitled Storia del Regno di Dalmatia e di Croazia, and edited by Luigi Cesare. Lucio’s work is singularly trustworthy and scientific. See also P. Pisani, La Dalmatie de 1797 à 1815 (Paris, 1893).

References.—A thorough and precise overview of Dalmatian history, art (especially architecture), antiquities, and geography is provided by T. G. Jackson in Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria (Oxford, 1887), (3 vols. illustrated). E. A. Freeman’s Subject and Neighbour Lands of Venice (London, 1881), and G. Modrich’s La Dalmazia (Turin, 1892), detail the main towns, their histories, and antiquities. A lot of miscellaneous information can be found in the following primarily topographical works:—P. Bauron, Les Rives illyriennes (Paris, 1888); Sir A. A. Paton, Highlands and Islands of the Adriatic (London, 1849); Sir J. G. Wilkinson, Dalmatia and Montenegro (London, 1840); A. Fortis, Travels into Dalmatia (London, 1778); as well as the periodicals Rivista Dalmatica (Zara, 1899, &c.) and Annuario Dalmatico (Zara, 1884, &c.). The best maps are published by the Austrian General Staff and Vincenzo de Haardt’s Zemljovid Kraljevine Dalmacije (Zara, 1892). For trade, refer to the Annual British Consular Reports; for sports, "Snaffle," In the Land of the Bora (London, 1897); and for Roman and pre-Roman antiquities, check R. Munro’s Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia (Edinburgh, 1904). In addition to the works mentioned above, and those by Farlatus, Makushev, Miklosich, Theiner, Shafarik, Orbini, and du Cange, which are cited under Bosnia and Herzegovina, the main authority for Dalmatian history is G. Lucio (Lucius of Traù), De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, a gentis origine ad annum 1480 (Amsterdam, 1666). This edition includes works by the Presbyter Diocleas, Thomas of Spalato, and other local chroniclers from the 12th century onward. An Italian translation, omitting the appendix, was published in Trieste in 1892, titled Storia del Regno di Dalmatia e di Croazia, and edited by Luigi Cesare. Lucio’s work is particularly reliable and scientific. Also see P. Pisani, La Dalmatie de 1797 à 1815 (Paris, 1893).

(K. G. J.)

1 This arrangement is based on the terms of the peace of Carlowitz 1699 (articles IX. and XI. of the Turco-Venetian Treaty). It is due to the commercial and maritime rivalry between Venice and Ragusa. The Ragusans bribed the Turkish envoys at Carlowitz to stipulate for a double extension of the Ottoman dominions down to the Adriatic; and thus the Ragusan lands, which otherwise would have bordered upon the Dalmatian possessions of Venice, were surrounded by neutral territory.

1 This agreement is based on the terms of the peace of Carlowitz 1699 (articles IX. and XI. of the Turco-Venetian Treaty). It stems from the commercial and maritime competition between Venice and Ragusa. The Ragusans bribed the Turkish envoys at Carlowitz to secure a significant expansion of the Ottoman territories extending to the Adriatic; as a result, the Ragusan lands, which would have otherwise bordered Venice's Dalmatian possessions, were encircled by neutral territory.

2 These figures, taken from the Austrian official returns, include the population of the entire commune, not merely the urban residents. Only in Zara, Spalato, Sebenico and Ragusa, do the actual townsfolk number more than 1000.

2 These numbers, sourced from the official Austrian reports, include the entire community's population, not just the city residents. Only in Zara, Spalato, Sebenico, and Ragusa do the actual townspeople exceed 1000.

3 Also written Dalminium, Deminium, and Delmis. Thomas of Spalato (c. 1200-1250) mentions that the site of Delminium had been forgotten in his time, although certain ancient walls among the mountains were believed to be its ruins. It has been variously identified, by modern archaeologists, with Almissa, on the coast, Dalen, in the Herzegovina, Duvno, near Sinj, and Gardun, in the same locality. It was evidently a stronghold of considerable size and importance, and Appian (De bellis Illyricis) alludes to its almost impregnable fortifications.

3 Also written Dalminium, Deminium, and Delmis. Thomas of Spalato (c. 1200-1250) notes that the location of Delminium was forgotten in his time, although some ancient walls in the mountains were thought to be its ruins. Modern archaeologists have identified it variously as Almissa on the coast, Dalen in Herzegovina, Duvno near Sinj, and Gardun in the same area. It was clearly a stronghold of significant size and importance, and Appian (De bellis Illyricis) refers to its nearly impregnable fortifications.

4 Long extracts from these reports or diaries are published by Wilkinson, Dalmatia and Montenegro (London, 1840), ii. 297-350.

4 Long excerpts from these reports or journals are published by Wilkinson, Dalmatia and Montenegro (London, 1840), ii. 297-350.


DALMATIC (Lat. dalmatica, tunica dalmatica), a liturgical vestment of the Western Church, proper to deacons, as the tunicle (tunicella) is to subdeacons. Dalmatic and tunicle are now, however, practically identical in shape and size; though, strictly, the latter should be somewhat smaller and with narrower arms. In most countries, e.g. England, France, Spain and Germany, dalmatic and tunicle are now no longer tunics, but scapular-like cloaks, with an opening for the head to pass through and square lappets falling from the shoulder over the upper part of the arm; in Italy, on the other hand, though open up the side, they still have regular sleeves and are essentially tunics. The most characteristic ornament of the dalmatic and tunicle is the vertical stripes running from the shoulder to the lower hem, these being connected by a cross-band, the position of which differs in various countries (see figs. 3, 4). Less essential are the orphreys on the hem of the arms and the fringes along the slits at the sides and the lower hem. The tassels hanging from either shoulder at the back (see fig. 6), formerly very much favoured, have now largely gone out of use.

DALMATIC (Lat. dalmatica, tunica dalmatica), is a liturgical garment of the Western Church, traditionally worn by deacons, just as the tunicle (tunicella) is worn by subdeacons. However, the dalmatic and tunicle are now practically the same in shape and size, although technically, the tunicle should be slightly smaller and have narrower sleeves. In many countries, like England, France, Spain, and Germany, both the dalmatic and tunicle have evolved from tunics to scapular-like cloaks, with a head opening and square flaps that hang from the shoulders over the upper arms. In contrast, in Italy, they are still technically tunics with regular sleeves, though they open at the sides. The most distinctive feature of the dalmatic and tunicle is the vertical stripes that run from the shoulder to the bottom hem, connected by a cross-band, the placement of which varies by country (see figs. 3, 4). The orphreys on the sleeve hems and the fringes along the side slits and lower hem are less crucial. The tassels that used to hang from each shoulder at the back (see fig. 6), once very popular, have mostly fallen out of style.

Fig. 1.—Deacon in dalmatic, apparelled amice and alb.

The dalmatica, which originated—as its name implies—in Dalmatia, came into fashion in the Roman world in the 2nd century A.D. It was a loose tunic with very wide sleeves, and was worn over the tunica alba by the better class of citizens (see. fig. 2). According to the Liber pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, l. 171) the dalmatic was first introduced as a vestment in public worship by Pope Silvester I. (314-335), who ordered it to be worn by the deacons; but Braun (Liturg. Gewandung, p. 250) thinks that it was probably in use by the popes themselves so early as the 3rd century, since St Cyprian (d. 258) is mentioned as wearing it when he went to his death. If this be so, it was probably given to the Roman deacons to distinguish them from the other clergy and to mark their special relations to the pope. However this may be, the dalmatic remained for centuries the vestment distinctive of the pope and his deacons, and—according at least to the view held at Rome—could be worn by other clergy only by special concession of the pope. Thus Pope Symmachus (498-514) granted the right to wear it to the deacons of Bishop Caesarius of Arles; and so late as 757 Pope Stephen II. gave permission to Fulrad, abbot of St Denis, to be assisted by six deacons at mass, and these are empowered to wear “the robe of honour of the dalmatic.” How far, however, this rule was strictly observed, and what was the relation of the Roman dalmatic to the diaconal alba and subdiaconal tunica, which were in liturgical use in Gaul and Spain so early as the 6th century, are moot points (see Braun, p. 252). The dalmatic was in general use at the beginning of the 9th century, partly as a result of the Carolingian reforms, which established the Roman model in western Europe; but it continued to be granted by the popes to distinguished ecclesiastics not otherwise entitled to wear it, e.g. to abbots or to the cardinal priests of important cathedrals. So far as the records show, Pope John XIII. (965-972) was the first to bestow the right to wear the dalmatic on an abbot, and Pope Benedict VII. the first to grant it to a cardinal priest of a foreign cathedral (975). The present rule was firmly established by the 11th century. According to the actual use of the Roman Catholic Church dalmatic and tunicle are worn by deacon and subdeacon when assisting at High Mass, and at solemn processions and benedictions. They are, however, traditionally vestments symbolical of joy (the bishop in placing the dalmatic on the newly ordained deacon says:—“May the Lord clothe thee in the tunic of joy and the garment of rejoicing”), and they are therefore not worn during seasons of fasting and penitence or functions connected with these, the folded chasuble (paenula plicata) being substituted (see Chasuble). Dalmatic and tunicle are never worn by priests, as priests, but both are worn by bishops under the chasuble (never under the cope) and also by those prelates, not being bishops, to whom the pope has conceded the right to wear the episcopal vestments.

The dalmatica, which originated—as its name suggests—in Dalmatia, became popular in the Roman world in the 2nd century A.D. It was a loose tunic with very wide sleeves, worn over the tunica alba by the upper class citizens (see. fig. 2). According to the Liber pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, l. 171), the dalmatic was first introduced as a garment in public worship by Pope Silvester I. (314-335), who ordered it to be worn by deacons; however, Braun (Liturg. Gewandung, p. 250) believes it was probably already in use by popes as early as the 3rd century, since St. Cyprian (d. 258) is noted to have worn it when he faced his death. If this is correct, the dalmatic was likely given to Roman deacons to set them apart from the other clergy and to signify their special connection to the pope. Regardless, the dalmatic remained the distinctive vestment for the pope and his deacons for centuries, and—at least according to the view in Rome—could be worn by other clergy only with special permission from the pope. For example, Pope Symmachus (498-514) granted the right to wear it to the deacons of Bishop Caesarius of Arles; and as late as 757, Pope Stephen II. permitted Fulrad, abbot of St. Denis, to be assisted by six deacons at mass, empowering them to wear “the robe of honour of the dalmatic.” However, the strict observance of this rule and the relationship of the Roman dalmatic to the diaconal alba and subdiaconal tunica, which were in liturgical use in Gaul and Spain as early as the 6th century, are debatable (see Braun, p. 252). The dalmatic was generally in use by the early 9th century, partly due to the Carolingian reforms that established the Roman model in Western Europe; but it continued to be granted by the popes to notable ecclesiastics not otherwise entitled to wear it, such as abbots or cardinal priests of significant cathedrals. Records indicate Pope John XIII. (965-972) was the first to grant the right to wear the dalmatic to an abbot, and Pope Benedict VII. was the first to extend it to a cardinal priest of a foreign cathedral (975). The current rule was firmly established by the 11th century. According to the practice of the Roman Catholic Church today, the dalmatic and tunicle are worn by deacons and subdeacons when assisting at High Mass, as well as during solemn processions and blessings. Traditionally, they symbolize joy (the bishop says to the newly ordained deacon when placing the dalmatic on him: “May the Lord clothe you in the tunic of joy and the garment of rejoicing”), and therefore, they are not worn during seasons of fasting and penance or related functions, with the folded chasuble (paenula plicata) being used instead (see Chasuble). Dalmatic and tunicle are never worn by priests in their priestly capacity, but both are worn by bishops under the chasuble (never under the cope) and by other prelates, who are not bishops, to whom the pope has granted the right to wear episcopal vestments.

In England at the Reformation the dalmatic ultimately shared the fate of the chasuble and other mass vestments. It was, however, certainly one of the “ornaments of the minister” in the second year of Edward VI., the rubric in the office for Holy Communion directing the priest’s “helpers” to wear “albes with tunacles.” In many Anglican churches it has therefore been restored, as a result of the ritual revival of the 19th century, it being claimed that its use is obligatory under the “ornaments rubric” of the Book of Common Prayer (see Vestments).

In England during the Reformation, the dalmatic eventually met the same outcome as the chasuble and other mass vestments. However, it was definitely one of the “ornaments of the minister” in the second year of Edward VI, with the rubric in the office for Holy Communion instructing the priest’s “helpers” to wear “albes with tunicles.” As a result of the 19th-century ritual revival, it has been reintroduced in many Anglican churches, with claims that its use is mandatory under the “ornaments rubric” of the Book of Common Prayer (see Vestments).

In the Eastern churches the only vestment that has any true analogy with the dalmatic or liturgical upper tunic is the sakkos, the tunic worn by deacons and subdeacons over their everyday clothes being the equivalent of the Western alb (q.v.). The sakkos, which, as a liturgical vestment, first appears in the 12th century as peculiar to patriarchs, is now a scapular-like robe very similar to the modern dalmatic (see fig. 5). Its origin is almost certainly the richly embroidered dalmatic that formed part of the consular insignia, which under the name of sakkos became a robe of state special to the emperors. It is clear, then, that this vestment can only have been assumed with the emperor’s permission; and Braun suggests (p. 305) that its use was granted to the patriarchs, after the completion of the schism of East and West, in order “in some sort to give them the character, in outward appearance as well, of popes of the East.” Its use is confined to the Greek rite. In the Greek and Greek-Melchite 777 churches it is confined to the patriarchs and metropolitans; in the Russian, Ruthenian and Bulgarian churches it is worn by all bishops. Unlike the practice of the Latin church, it is not worn under, but has replaced the phelonion (chasuble).

In the Eastern churches, the only garment that truly resembles the dalmatic or liturgical upper tunic is the sakkos, which is a tunic worn by deacons and subdeacons over their regular clothes, similar to the Western alb (q.v.). The sakkos, which first appeared as a liturgical vestment in the 12th century specifically for patriarchs, is now a scapular-like robe that closely resembles the modern dalmatic (see fig. 5). Its origins likely lie in the richly embroidered dalmatic

Plate I.

Plate 1.

Fig. 2.—TUNIC OF LINEN, WOVEN WITH BANDS OF PURPLE WOOL EMBROIDERED WITH WHITE FLAX.
From the tombs at Akhmim. Egypto-Roman; 1st to 4th century. (In the Victoria and Albert Museum.)
Fig. 3.—BACK OF A DALMATIC OF STAMPED GREEN WOOLLEN VELVET: THE ORPHREYS AND APPARELS ARE OF EMBROIDERED SILK VELVET.
The two figures on the cross-band or apparel represent St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine. The shields of arms are for the dukes of Jülich and Berg, counts of Ravensberg, and for the electors of Bavaria. Said to have come from the church of St. Severin, Cologne. German (Cologne); second half of 15th century. (In the Victoria and Albert Museum.)

Plate II.

Plate 2.

Fig. 4.—DALMATIC OF WHITE SATIN EMRROIDERED WITH COLOURED SILKS AND SILVER-GILT AND SILVER THREAD.
Spanish; early 17th century. (In the Victoria and Albert Museum.)
Fig. 5.—GREEK SAKKOS, OF RED SATIN EMBROIDERED WITH SILVER-GILT AND SILVER THREAD WITH SILK. Fig. 6.—DALMATIC OF POPE PIUS V.
It has the names and arms of two archbishops. 18th century. (In the Victoria and Albert Museum.) An early example of the modern Roman type. Roman; 16th century. Preserved at Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome. From a photograph taken by Father J. Braun (in Die liturgische Gewandung), by permission of B. Herder.

A silk dalmatic forms one (the undermost) of the English coronation robes. Its use would seem to have been borrowed, not from the robes of the Eastern emperors, but from the church, and to symbolize with the other robes the quasi-sacerdotal character of the kingship (see Coronation). The magnificent so-called dalmatic of Charlemagne, preserved at Rome (see Embroidery), is really a Greek sakkos.

A silk dalmatic is one of the English coronation robes. Its use appears to have been inspired not by the robes of Eastern emperors but by the church, symbolizing, along with the other robes, the almost priestly nature of kingship (see Coronation). The impressive dalmatic of Charlemagne, which is kept in Rome (see Embroidery), is actually a Greek sakkos.

See Joseph Braun, S.J., Die liturgische Gewandung (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1907), pp. 247-305. For further references and illustrations see the article Vestments.

See Joseph Braun, S.J., The Liturgical Vestments (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1907), pp. 247-305. For more references and illustrations, check the article Vestments.

(W. A. P.)

DALMELLINGTON, a village of Ayrshire, Scotland, 15 m. S.E. of Ayr by a branch line, of which it is the terminus, of the Glasgow & South-Western railway. Pop. (1901) 1448. The district is rich in minerals—coal, ironstone, sandstone and limestone. Though the place is of great antiquity, the Roman road running near it, few remains of any interest exist. It was, however, a centre of activity in the Covenanting times.

DALMELLINGTON, is a village in Ayrshire, Scotland, located 15 miles southeast of Ayr by a branch line, which is its terminus on the Glasgow & South-Western railway. Population (1901) was 1,448. The area is rich in minerals like coal, ironstone, sandstone, and limestone. Although the village has a long history and a Roman road runs nearby, there are not many interesting remains. However, it was an active center during the Covenanting times.


DALOU, JULES (1838-1902), French sculptor, was the pupil of Carpeaux and Duret, and combined the vivacity and richness of the one with the academic purity and scholarship of the other. He is one of the most brilliant virtuosos of the French school, admirable alike in taste, execution and arrangement. He first exhibited at the Salon in 1867, but when in 1871 the troubles of the Commune broke out in Paris, he took refuge in England, where he rapidly made a name through his appointment at South Kensington. Here he laid the foundation of that great improvement which resulted in the development of the modern British school of sculpture, and at the same time executed a remarkable series of terra-cotta statuettes and groups, such as “A French Peasant Woman” (of which a bronze version under the title of “Maternity” is erected outside the Royal Exchange), the group of two Boulogne women called “The Reader” and “A Woman of Boulogne telling her Beads.” He returned to France in 1879 and produced a number of masterpieces. His great relief of “Mirabeau replying to M. de Dreux-Brézé,” exhibited in 1883 and now at the Palais Bourbon, and the highly decorative panel, “Triumph of the Republic,” were followed in 1885 by “The Procession of Silenus.” For the city of Paris he executed his most elaborate and splendid achievement, the vast monument, “The Triumph of the Republic,” erected, after twenty years’ work, in the Place de la Nation, showing a symbolical figure of the Republic, aloft on her car, drawn by lions led by Liberty, attended by Labour and Justice, and followed by Peace. It is somewhat in the taste of the Louis XIV. period, ornate, but exquisite in every detail. Within a few days there was also inaugurated his great “Monument to Alphand” (1899), which almost equalled in the success achieved the monument to Delacroix in the Luxembourg Gardens. Dalou, who gained the Grand Prix of the International exhibition of 1889, and was an officer of the Legion of Honour, was one of the founders of the New Salon (Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts), and was the first president of the sculpture section. In portraiture, whether statues or busts, his work is not less remarkable.

DALOU, JULES (1838-1902), was a French sculptor who studied under Carpeaux and Duret, blending the vibrant style of the former with the academic precision of the latter. He ranks among the most talented artists of the French school, excelling in taste, craftsmanship, and composition. He first showcased his work at the Salon in 1867, but when the Commune unrest erupted in Paris in 1871, he sought safety in England. There, he quickly gained recognition through his role at South Kensington, where he helped establish significant advancements that led to the growth of the modern British sculpture movement. Simultaneously, he created an impressive series of terra-cotta figures and groups, including “A French Peasant Woman” (a bronze version titled “Maternity” stands outside the Royal Exchange), alongside pieces like the pair of Boulogne women named “The Reader” and “A Woman of Boulogne telling her Beads.” Dalou returned to France in 1879 and produced numerous masterpieces, including the grand relief “Mirabeau replying to M. de Dreux-Brézé,” displayed in 1883 and now located at the Palais Bourbon, and the decorative panel “Triumph of the Republic.” In 1885, he completed “The Procession of Silenus.” His most elaborate work for the city of Paris, “The Triumph of the Republic,” took twenty years to complete and was unveiled in the Place de la Nation, featuring a symbolic figure of the Republic riding in a chariot pulled by lions guided by Liberty, accompanied by Labour and Justice, and followed by Peace. The piece, while ornate in the style of the Louis XIV era, is exquisite down to the smallest details. Shortly after, his impressive “Monument to Alphand” (1899) was inaugurated, which nearly matched the acclaim of his monument to Delacroix in the Luxembourg Gardens. Dalou, who won the Grand Prix at the 1889 International exhibition and was an officer of the Legion of Honour, was a founding member of the New Salon (Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts) and served as the first president of the sculpture section. His work in portraiture, whether in statues or busts, is equally remarkable.


DALRADIAN, in geology, a series of metamorphic rocks, typically developed in the high ground which lies E. and S. of the Great Glen of Scotland. This was the old Celtic region of Dalradia, and in 1891 Sir A. Geikie proposed the name Dalradian as a convenient provisional designation for the complicated set of rocks to which it is difficult to assign a definite position in the stratigraphical sequence (Q.J.G.S. 47, p. 75). In Sir A. Geikie’s words, “they consist in large proportion of altered sedimentary strata, now found in the form of mica-schist, graphite-schist, andalusite-schist, phyllite, schistose grit, greywacke and conglomerate, quartzite, limestone and other rocks, together with epidiorites, chlorite-schists, hornblende schists and other allied varieties, which probably mark sills, lava-sheets or beds of tuff, intercalated among the sediments. The total thickness of this assemblage of rocks must be many thousand feet.” The Dalradian series includes the “Eastern or Younger schists” of eastern Sutherland, Ross-shire and Inverness-shire—the Moine gneiss, &c.—as well as the metamorphosed sedimentary and eruptive rocks of the central, eastern and south-western Highlands. The series has been traced into the north-western counties of Ireland. The whole of the Dalradian complex has suffered intense crushing and thrusting.

DALRADIAN, in geology, refers to a series of metamorphic rocks, typically found in the highlands to the east and south of the Great Glen in Scotland. This area was once the ancient Celtic region of Dalradia, and in 1891, Sir A. Geikie suggested the name Dalradian as a useful temporary label for the complicated group of rocks that are hard to place in the stratigraphical sequence (Q.J.G.S. 47, p. 75). According to Sir A. Geikie, “they primarily consist of altered sedimentary layers, now appearing as mica-schist, graphite-schist, andalusite-schist, phyllite, schistose grit, greywacke and conglomerate, quartzite, limestone, and other rocks, along with epidiorites, chlorite-schists, hornblende schists and related varieties, which likely indicate sills, lava-sheets, or tuff beds mixed in with the sediments. The total thickness of this collection of rocks must be many thousand feet.” The Dalradian series includes the “Eastern or Younger schists” of eastern Sutherland, Ross-shire, and Inverness-shire—the Moine gneiss, etc.—as well as the metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks found in the central, eastern, and southwestern Highlands. This series has also been traced into the northwestern counties of Ireland. The entire Dalradian complex has experienced significant crushing and thrusting.

See Pre-Cambrian; also J. B. Hill, Q.J.G.S., 1899, 55, and G. Barrow, loc. cit., 1901, 57, and the Annual Reports and Summaries of Progress of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom from 1893 onwards.

See Pre-Cambrian; also J. B. Hill, Q.J.G.S., 1899, 55, and G. Barrow, loc. cit., 1901, 57, and the Annual Reports and Summaries of Progress of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom from 1893 onwards.


DALRIADA, the name of two ancient Gaelic kingdoms, one in Ireland and the other in Scotland. The name means the home of the descendants of Riada. Irish Dalriada was the district which now forms the northern part of county Antrim, and from which about A.D. 500 some emigrants crossed over to Scotland, and founded in Argyllshire the Scottish kingdom of Dalriada. For a time Scottish Dalriada appears to have been dependent upon Irish Dalriada, but about 575 King Aidan secured its independence. One of Aidan’s successors, Kenneth, became king of the Picts about 843, and gradually the name Dalriada both in Ireland and Scotland fell into disuse.

DALRIADA, refers to two ancient Gaelic kingdoms, one in Ireland and the other in Scotland. The name means the home of the descendants of Riada. The Irish Dalriada covered the area that is now the northern part of County Antrim. Around A.D. 500, some emigrants from there crossed over to Scotland and established the Scottish kingdom of Dalriada in Argyllshire. For a while, Scottish Dalriada seemed to rely on Irish Dalriada, but around 575, King Aidan achieved its independence. One of Aidan’s successors, Kenneth, became king of the Picts around 843, and gradually the name Dalriada fell out of use in both Ireland and Scotland.

See W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland (Edinburgh, 1876-1880).

See W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland (Edinburgh, 1876-1880).


DALRY (Gaelic, “the field of the king”), a mining and manufacturing town of Ayrshire, Scotland, on the Garnock, 23¼ m. S.W. of Glasgow, by the Glasgow & South-Western railway. Pop. (1901) 5316. The public buildings include the library and reading-room, the assembly rooms, Davidshill hospital, Temperance hall and night asylum. There is a public park. The industries consist of woollen factories, worsted spinning, box-, cabinet-, coke- and brick-making, machine-knitting, currying and the manufacture of aerated waters. Coal and iron are found, but mining is not extensively pursued. In the vicinity are the iron works of Blair and Glengarnock, and a curious stalactite cave, known as Elf House, 30 ft. high and about 200 ft. long, offering some resemblance to a pointed aisle. Rye Water flows into the Garnock close to the town. Captain Thomas Crawford of Jordanhill (1530-1603), the captor of Dumbarton Castle, spent the closing years of his life at Dalry, where a considerable estate had been granted to him.

DALRY (Gaelic, “the field of the king”), a mining and manufacturing town in Ayrshire, Scotland, located on the Garnock, 23¼ miles southwest of Glasgow, accessible via the Glasgow & South-Western railway. Population (1901) was 5,316. The public buildings include a library and reading room, assembly rooms, Davidshill hospital, Temperance hall, and a night shelter. There is a public park. The main industries consist of woolen factories, worsted spinning, and the production of boxes, cabinets, coke, bricks, machine knitting, leather, and carbonated beverages. Coal and iron are found in the area, but mining is not widely practiced. Nearby are the iron works at Blair and Glengarnock, and a unique stalactite cave, known as Elf House, which is 30 feet high and about 200 feet long, resembling a pointed aisle. Rye Water flows into the Garnock close to the town. Captain Thomas Crawford of Jordanhill (1530-1603), who captured Dumbarton Castle, spent his final years in Dalry, where he was granted a significant estate.


DALTON, JOHN (1766-1844), English chemist and physicist, was born about the 6th of September 1766 at Eaglesfield, near Cockermouth in Cumberland. His father, Joseph Dalton, was a weaver in poor circumstances, who, with his wife (Deborah Greenup), belonged to the Society of Friends; they had three children—Jonathan, John and Mary. John received his early education from his father and from John Fletcher, teacher of the Quakers’ school at Eaglesfield, on whose retirement in 1778 he himself started teaching. This youthful venture was not successful, the amount he received in fees being only about five shillings a week, and after two years he took to farm work. But he had received some instruction in mathematics from a distant relative, Elihu Robinson, and in 1781 he left his native village to become assistant to his cousin George Bewley who kept a school at Kendal. There he passed the next twelve years, becoming in 1785, through the retirement of his cousin, joint manager of the school with his elder brother Jonathan. About 1790 he seems to have thought of taking up law or medicine, but his projects met with no encouragement from his relatives and he remained at Kendal till, in the spring of 1793, he moved to Manchester, where he spent the rest of his life. Mainly through John Gough (1757-1825), a blind philosopher to whose aid he owed much of his scientific knowledge, he was appointed teacher of mathematics and natural philosophy at the New College in Moseley Street (in 1880 transferred to Manchester College, Oxford), and that position he retained until the removal of the college to York in 1799, when he became a “public and private teacher of mathematics and chemistry.”

DALTON, JOHN (1766-1844), an English chemist and physicist, was born around September 6, 1766, in Eaglesfield, near Cockermouth in Cumberland. His father, Joseph Dalton, was a weaver struggling financially, and he and his wife (Deborah Greenup) were part of the Society of Friends; they had three children—Jonathan, John, and Mary. John got his early education from his father and from John Fletcher, who taught at the Quakers’ school in Eaglesfield. When Fletcher retired in 1778, John began teaching there himself. However, this venture didn’t go well, as he only earned about five shillings a week in fees, and after two years, he turned to farm work. He had received some math instruction from a distant relative, Elihu Robinson, and in 1781, he left his hometown to assist his cousin George Bewley, who ran a school in Kendal. He spent the next twelve years there and became a joint manager of the school with his older brother Jonathan in 1785 after his cousin retired. Around 1790, he considered studying law or medicine, but his family didn't support these plans, so he stayed in Kendal until spring 1793, when he moved to Manchester, where he lived for the rest of his life. Thanks largely to John Gough (1757-1825), a blind philosopher who helped him greatly with his scientific knowledge, he was appointed as a teacher of mathematics and natural philosophy at the New College in Moseley Street (which moved to Manchester College, Oxford in 1880). He held that position until the college relocated to York in 1799, when he became a “public and private teacher of mathematics and chemistry.”

During his residence in Kendal, Dalton had contributed solutions of problems and questions on various subjects to the Gentlemen’s and Ladies’ Diaries, and in 1787 he began to keep a meteorological diary in which during the succeeding fifty-seven 778 years he entered more than 200,000 observations. His first separate publication was Meteorological Observations and Essays (1793), which contained the germs of several of his later discoveries; but in spite of the originality of its matter, the book met with only a limited sale. Another work by him, Elements of English Grammar, was published in 1801. In 1794 he was elected a member of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, and a few weeks after election he communicated his first paper on “Extraordinary facts relating to the vision of colours,” in which he gave the earliest account of the optical peculiarity known as Daltonism or colour-blindness, and summed up its characteristics as observed in himself and others. Besides the blue and purple of the spectrum he was able to recognize only one colour, yellow, or, as he says in his paper, “that part of the image which others call red appears to me little more than a shade or defect of light; after that the orange, yellow and green seem one colour which descends pretty uniformly from an intense to a rare yellow, making what I should call different shades of yellow.” This paper was followed by many others on diverse topics—on rain and dew and the origin of springs, on heat, the colour of the sky, steam, the auxiliary verbs and participles of the English language and the reflection and refraction of light. In 1800 he became a secretary of the society, and in the following year he presented the important paper or series of papers, entitled “Experimental Essays on the constitution of mixed gases; on the force of steam or vapour of water and other liquids in different temperatures, both in Torricellian vacuum and in air; on evaporation; and on the expansion of gases by heat.” The second of these essays opens with the striking remark, “There can scarcely be a doubt entertained respecting the reducibility of all elastic fluids of whatever kind, into liquids; and we ought not to despair of effecting it in low temperatures and by strong pressures exerted upon the unmixed gases”; further, after describing experiments to ascertain the tension of aqueous vapour at different points between 32° and 212° F., he concludes, from observations on the vapour of six different liquids, “that the variation of the force of vapour from all liquids is the same for the same variation of temperature, reckoning from vapour of any given force.” In the fourth essay he remarks, “I see no sufficient reason why we may not conclude that all elastic fluids under the same pressure expand equally by heat and that for any given expansion of mercury, the corresponding expansion of air is proportionally something less, the higher the temperature.... It seems, therefore, that general laws respecting the absolute quantity and the nature of heat are more likely to be derived from elastic fluids than from other substances.” He thus enunciated the law of the expansion of gases, stated some months later by Gay-Lussac. In the two or three years following the reading of these essays, he published several papers on similar topics, that on the “Absorption of gases by water and other liquids” (1803), containing his “Law of partial pressures.”

During his time in Kendal, Dalton contributed solutions to various problems and questions in the Gentlemen’s and Ladies’ Diaries. In 1787, he started keeping a meteorological diary where over the next fifty-seven years, he recorded more than 200,000 observations. His first standalone publication was Meteorological Observations and Essays (1793), which included the foundations of several later discoveries; however, despite its originality, the book sold only moderately well. Another work, Elements of English Grammar, was published in 1801. In 1794, he was elected to the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, and shortly after, he presented his first paper on “Extraordinary facts relating to the vision of colours.” In this paper, he provided the earliest account of the optical peculiarity known as Daltonism or color blindness, summarizing its characteristics based on his observations and those of others. Apart from the blue and purple of the spectrum, he could only identify one color: yellow. As he noted in his paper, “what others call red appears to me little more than a shade or defect of light; after that, the orange, yellow, and green seem to merge into one color that gradually transitions from a bright to a pale yellow, creating what I would describe as different shades of yellow.” This paper was followed by many others on a variety of topics—including rain, dew, the origin of springs, heat, the color of the sky, steam, auxiliary verbs and participles in English, and the reflection and refraction of light. In 1800, he became secretary of the society, and the next year he presented a significant series of papers titled “Experimental Essays on the constitution of mixed gases; on the force of steam or vapour of water and other liquids at different temperatures, both in a Torricellian vacuum and in air; on evaporation; and on the expansion of gases by heat.” The second essay begins with the noteworthy observation, “There can scarcely be a doubt that all elastic fluids of whatever kind can be converted into liquids; and we should not lose hope of achieving this at low temperatures and with strong pressures applied to unmixed gases.” He further describes experiments to determine the tension of aqueous vapor at different temperatures between 32° and 212° F., concluding from observations on the vapor of six different liquids, “that the variation in vapor force from all liquids is the same for the same temperature changes, starting from vapor of any given force.” In the fourth essay, he states, “I see no sufficient reason to believe that all elastic fluids under the same pressure expand equally with heat and that for any given expansion of mercury, the corresponding expansion of air is proportionally somewhat less at higher temperatures... It seems, therefore, that general laws concerning the absolute quantity and nature of heat are more likely to be derived from elastic fluids than from other substances.” He articulated the law of the expansion of gases, which was noted a few months later by Gay-Lussac. In the next two or three years after these essays, he published several papers on related topics, including one on the “Absorption of gases by water and other liquids” (1803), which contained his “Law of partial pressures.”

But the most important of all Dalton’s investigations are those concerned with the Atomic Theory in chemistry, with which his name is inseparably associated. It has been supposed that this theory was suggested to him either by researches on olefiant gas and carburetted hydrogen or by analysis of “protoxide and deutoxide of azote,” both views resting on the authority of Dr Thomas Thomson (1773-1852), professor of chemistry in Glasgow university. But from a study of Dalton’s own MS. laboratory notebooks, discovered in the rooms of the Manchester society, Roscoe and Harden (A New View of the Origin of Dalton’s Atomic Theory, 1896) conclude that so far from Dalton being led to the idea that chemical combination consists in the approximation of atoms of definite and characteristic weight by his search for an explanation of the law of combination in multiple proportions, the idea of atomic structure arose in his mind as a purely physical conception, forced upon him by study of the physical properties of the atmosphere and other gases. The first published indications of this idea are to be found at the end of his paper on the “Absorption of gases” already mentioned, which was read on the 21st of October 1803 though not published till 1805. Here he says: “Why does not water admit its bulk of every kind of gas alike? This question I have duly considered, and though I am not able to satisfy myself completely I am nearly persuaded that the circumstance depends on the weight and number of the ultimate particles of the several gases.” He proceeds to give what has been quoted as his first table of atomic weights, but on p. 248 of his laboratory notebooks for 1802-1804, under the date 6th of September 1803, there is an earlier one in which he sets forth the relative weights of the ultimate atoms of a number of substances, derived from analysis of water, ammonia, carbon-dioxide, &c. by chemists of the time. It appears, then, that, confronted with the “problem of ascertaining the relative diameter of the particles of which, he was convinced, all gases were made up, he had recourse to the results of chemical analysis. Assisted by the assumption that combination always takes place in the simplest possible way, he thus arrived at the idea that chemical combination takes place between particles of different weights, and this it was which differentiated his theory from the historic speculations of the Greeks. The extension of this idea to substances in general necessarily led him to the law of combination in multiple proportions, and the comparison with experiment brilliantly confirmed the truth of his deduction” (A New View, &c., pp. 50, 51). It may be noted that in a paper on the “Proportion of the gases or elastic fluids constituting the atmosphere,” read by him in November 1802, the law of multiple proportions appears to be anticipated in the words—“The elements of oxygen may combine with a certain portion of nitrous gas or with twice that portion, but with no intermediate quantity,” but there is reason to suspect that this sentence was added some time after the reading of the paper, which was not published till 1805.

But the most important of all Dalton’s research revolves around Atomic Theory in chemistry, which is closely linked to his name. It’s believed that this theory was inspired either by his work on olefiant gas and carburetted hydrogen or by his analysis of “protoxide and deutoxide of azote,” with both ideas supported by Dr. Thomas Thomson (1773-1852), a chemistry professor at Glasgow University. However, based on a study of Dalton’s own laboratory notebooks found at the Manchester Society, Roscoe and Harden (A New View of the Origin of Dalton’s Atomic Theory, 1896) concluded that instead of Dalton being led to the idea that chemical combinations consist of atoms with definite and specific weights while trying to explain the law of combination in multiple proportions, the concept of atomic structure actually emerged in his mind as a purely physical idea. This idea was prompted by his study of the physical properties of the atmosphere and other gases. The first published hints of this idea can be found at the end of his paper on the “Absorption of gases,” mentioned earlier, which was read on October 21, 1803, but not published until 1805. In it, he asks: “Why doesn’t water absorb its volume of every kind of gas equally? I’ve thought about this question, and while I can’t fully satisfy myself, I’m almost convinced that this situation relies on the weight and number of the fundamental particles of different gases.” He then offers what has been noted as his first table of atomic weights, but on page 248 of his laboratory notebooks for 1802-1804, under the date of September 6, 1803, there’s an earlier version where he lays out the relative weights of the ultimate atoms of various substances, based on analyses of water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, etc., by chemists of the time. It seems that, faced with the challenge of determining the relative size of the particles he believed all gases were made of, he turned to chemical analysis results. With the assumption that combinations always occur in the simplest possible manner, he arrived at the notion that chemical combination happens between particles of different weights, which set his theory apart from the historical musings of the Greeks. The application of this idea to substances in general naturally led him to the law of combination in multiple proportions, and experiments thoroughly confirmed the validity of his conclusions (A New View, & c., pp. 50, 51). It’s worth mentioning that in a paper titled “Proportion of the gases or elastic fluids constituting the atmosphere,” which he presented in November 1802, he seems to anticipate the law of multiple proportions with the statement: “The elements of oxygen may combine with a certain amount of nitrous gas or with twice that amount, but not with any quantity in between.” However, there’s reason to believe this sentence was added sometime after the paper was presented, which wasn’t published until 1805.

Dalton communicated his atomic theory to Dr Thomson, who by consent included an outline of it in the third edition of his System of Chemistry (1807), and Dalton gave a further account of it in the first part of the first volume of his New System of Chemical Philosophy (1808). The second part of this volume appeared in 1810, but the first part of the second volume was not issued till 1827, though the printing of it began in 1817. This delay is not explained by any excess of care in preparation, for much of the matter was out of date and the appendix giving the author’s latest views is the only portion of special interest. The second part of vol. ii. never appeared.

Dalton shared his atomic theory with Dr. Thomson, who included an outline of it in the third edition of his System of Chemistry (1807). Dalton provided a more detailed account in the first part of the first volume of his New System of Chemical Philosophy (1808). The second part of this volume was released in 1810, but the first part of the second volume wasn't published until 1827, even though printing started in 1817. This delay wasn’t due to an excessive amount of care in preparation, as much of the content was outdated, and the appendix containing the author's latest insights was the only section of particular interest. The second part of vol. ii. never came out.

Altogether Dalton contributed 116 memoirs to the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, of which from 1817 till his death he was the president. Of these the earlier are the most important. In one of them, read in 1814, he explains the principles of volumetric analysis, in which he was one of the earliest workers. In 1840 a paper on the phosphates and arsenates, which was clearly unworthy of him, was refused by the Royal Society, and he was so incensed that he published it himself. He took the same course soon afterwards with four other papers, two of which—“On the quantity of acids, bases and salts in different varieties of salts” and “On a new and easy method of analysing sugar,” contain his discovery, regarded by him as second in importance only to the atomic theory, that certain anhydrous salts when dissolved in water cause no increase in its volume, his inference being that the “salt enters into the pores of the water.”

Dalton contributed a total of 116 memoirs to the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, where he served as president from 1817 until his death. The earlier ones are the most significant. In one of them, presented in 1814, he explains the principles of volumetric analysis, an area in which he was one of the pioneers. In 1840, a paper on phosphates and arsenates, which he clearly felt was below his standards, was rejected by the Royal Society, and he was so frustrated that he decided to publish it himself. He took the same approach soon after with four other papers, two of which—“On the quantity of acids, bases and salts in different varieties of salts” and “On a new and easy method of analysing sugar”—include his discovery, which he considered to be second in importance only to the atomic theory. This discovery was that certain anhydrous salts, when dissolved in water, do not increase its volume, leading him to conclude that the “salt enters into the pores of the water.”

As an investigator, Dalton was content with rough and inaccurate instruments, though better ones were readily attainable. Sir Humphry Davy described him as a “very coarse experimenter,” who “almost always found the results he required, trusting to his head rather than his hands.” In the preface to the second part of vol. i. of his New System he says he had so often been misled by taking for granted the results of others that he “determined to write as little as possible but what I can attest by my own experience,” but this independence he carried so far that it sometimes resembled lack of receptivity. Thus he distrusted, and probably never fully accepted, Gay-Lussac’s conclusions as to the combining volumes of gases; he held peculiar and quite unfounded views about chlorine, even after 779 its elementary character had been settled by Davy; he persisted in using the atomic weights he himself had adopted, even when they had been superseded by the more accurate determinations of other chemists; and he always objected to the chemical notation devised by J. J. Berzelius, although by common consent it was much simpler and more convenient than his cumbersome system of circular symbols. His library, he was once heard to declare, he could carry on his back, yet he had not read half the books it contained.

As an investigator, Dalton was satisfied with crude and imprecise tools, even though there were better options available. Sir Humphry Davy described him as a “very coarse experimenter,” who “almost always got the results he needed, relying more on his mind than his hands.” In the preface to the second part of vol. i. of his New System, he mentioned that he had often been misled by assuming the results of others, so he “decided to write as little as possible but what I can confirm through my own experience.” However, he took this independence to the point where it sometimes appeared as a lack of openness. For example, he was skeptical of, and likely never fully accepted, Gay-Lussac’s findings on the combining volumes of gases; he held strange and baseless beliefs about chlorine, even after Davy had confirmed its elementary nature; he stuck to the atomic weights he had chosen, even when they were replaced by more accurate measurements from other chemists; and he consistently opposed the chemical notation created by J. J. Berzelius, even though it was widely agreed to be much simpler and more convenient than his complicated system of circular symbols. He once claimed that he could carry his library on his back, yet he hadn't read half of the books it contained.

Before he had propounded the atomic theory he had already attained a considerable scientific reputation. In 1804 he was chosen to give a course of lectures on natural philosophy at the Royal Institution in London, where he delivered another course in 1809-1810. But he was deficient, it would seem, in the qualities that make an attractive lecturer, being harsh and indistinct in voice, ineffective in the treatment of his subject, and “singularly wanting in the language and power of illustration.” In 1810 he was asked by Davy to offer himself as a candidate for the fellowship of the Royal Society, but declined, possibly for pecuniary reasons; but in 1822 he was proposed without his knowledge, and on election paid the usual fee. Six years previously he had been made a corresponding member of the French Academy of Sciences, and in 1830 he was elected as one of its eight foreign associates in place of Davy. In 1833 Lord Grey’s government conferred on him a pension of £150, raised in 1836 to £300. Never married, though there is evidence that he delighted in the society of women of education and refinement, he lived for more than a quarter of a century with his friend the Rev. W. Johns (1771-1845), in George Street, Manchester, where his daily round of laboratory work and tuition was broken only by annual excursions to the Lake district and occasional visits to London, “a surprising place and well worth one’s while to see once, but the most disagreeable place on earth for one of a contemplative turn to reside in constantly.” In 1822 he paid a short visit to Paris, where he met many of the distinguished men of science then living in the French capital, and he attended several of the earlier meetings of the British Association at York, Oxford, Dublin and Bristol. Into society he rarely went, and his only amusement was a game of bowls on Thursday afternoons. He died in Manchester in 1844 of paralysis. The first attack he suffered in 1837, and a second in 1838 left him much enfeebled, both physically and mentally, though he remained able to make experiments. In May 1844 he had another stroke; on the 26th of July he recorded with trembling hand his last meteorological observation, and on the 27th he fell from his bed and was found lifeless by his attendant. A bust of him, by Chantrey, was publicly subscribed for in 1833 and placed in the entrance hall of the Manchester Royal Institution.

Before he proposed the atomic theory, he had already built a solid scientific reputation. In 1804, he was chosen to give a series of lectures on natural philosophy at the Royal Institution in London, where he delivered another series in 1809-1810. However, he seemed to lack the qualities that make a lecturer appealing, being harsh and unclear in his voice, ineffective in his subject matter, and “remarkably lacking in language and illustrative power.” In 1810, he was encouraged by Davy to run for a fellowship at the Royal Society, but he declined, possibly for financial reasons; however, in 1822, he was proposed without his knowledge, and after being elected, he paid the usual fee. Six years earlier, he had become a corresponding member of the French Academy of Sciences, and in 1830, he was elected as one of its eight foreign associates, replacing Davy. In 1833, Lord Grey’s government awarded him a pension of £150, which was raised to £300 in 1836. He never married, although there is evidence that he enjoyed the company of educated and refined women. He lived for over twenty-five years with his friend, Rev. W. Johns (1771-1845), on George Street in Manchester, where his daily routine of laboratory work and teaching was only interrupted by annual trips to the Lake District and occasional visits to London, “a surprising place and well worth seeing once, but the most disagreeable place on earth for someone contemplative to live in constantly.” In 1822, he made a short visit to Paris, where he met many prominent scientists living in the French capital, and he attended several of the earlier meetings of the British Association in York, Oxford, Dublin, and Bristol. He rarely socialized, and his only leisure activity was playing bowls on Thursday afternoons. He died in Manchester in 1844 from paralysis. His first attack occurred in 1837, and a second in 1838 left him significantly weakened, both physically and mentally, although he was still able to conduct experiments. In May 1844, he suffered another stroke; on July 26, he recorded his last meteorological observation with a trembling hand, and on the 27th, he fell from his bed and was found lifeless by his attendant. A bust of him, created by Chantrey, was publicly funded in 1833 and placed in the entrance hall of the Manchester Royal Institution.

See Henry, Life of Dalton, Cavendish Society (1854); Angus Smith, Memoir of John Dalton and History of the Atomic Theory (1856), which on pp. 253-263 gives a list of Dalton’s publications; and Roscoe and Harden, A New View of the Origin of Dalton’s Atomic Theory (1896); also Atom.

See Henry, Life of Dalton, Cavendish Society (1854); Angus Smith, Memoir of John Dalton and History of the Atomic Theory (1856), which on pp. 253-263 gives a list of Dalton’s publications; and Roscoe and Harden, A New View of the Origin of Dalton’s Atomic Theory (1896); also Atom.


DALTON, a city and the county-seat of Whitfield county, Georgia, U.S.A., in the N.W. part of the state, 100 m. N.N.W. of Atlanta. Pop. (1890) 3046; (1900) 4315 (957 negroes); (1910) 5324. Dalton is served by the Southern, the Nashville, Chattanooga & St Louis, and the Western & Atlanta (operated by the Nashville, Chattanooga & St Louis) railways. The city is in a rich agricultural region; ships cotton, grain, fruit and ore; and has various manufactures, including canned fruit and vegetables, flour and foundry and machine shop products. It is the seat of Dalton Female College. Dalton was founded by Duff Green and others in 1848, and was incorporated in 1874. Hither General Braxton Bragg retreated after his defeat at Chattanooga in the last week of November 1863. Three weeks afterwards Bragg, in command of the army in northern Georgia in winter quarters here, was replaced by General Joseph E. Johnston, who, with his force of 54,400, adopted defensive tactics to meet Sherman’s invasion of Georgia, with his 99,000 or 100,000 men in the Army of the Cumberland (60,000) under General G. H. Thomas, the Army of the Tennessee (25,000) under General J. B. M‘Pherson, and the Army of the Ohio (14,000) under General J. M. Schofield. The Federal forces stretched for 20 m. in a position south of Ringgold and between Ringgold and Dalton. Johnston’s line of defences included Rocky Face Ridge, a wall of rock through which the railway passes about 5 m. north-west of the city, Mill Creek (1 m. north-north-west of Dalton), which he dammed so that it could not be forded, and earthworks north and east of the city. On the 7th of May General M’Pherson started for Resaca, 18 m. south of Dalton, to occupy the railway there in Johnston’s rear, but he did not attack Resaca, thinking it too strongly protected; Thomas, with Schofield on his left, on the 7th forced the Confederates through Buzzard’s Roost Gap (the pass at Mill Creek) north-west of Dalton; at Dug Gap, 4 m. south-west of Dalton, on the 8th a fierce Federal assault under Brigadier-General John W. Geary failed to dislodge the Confederates from a quite impregnable position. On the 11th the main body of Sherman’s army followed M’Pherson toward Resaca, and Johnston, having evacuated Dalton on the night of the 12th, was thus forced, after five days’ manœuvring and skirmishing, to march to Resaca and to meet Sherman there.

DALTON is a city and the county seat of Whitfield County, Georgia, U.S.A., located in the northwest part of the state, 100 miles north-northwest of Atlanta. Population (1890) was 3,046; (1900) 4,315 (957 African Americans); (1910) 5,324. Dalton is served by the Southern Railway, the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, and the Western & Atlanta Railway (operated by the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis). The city is in a fertile agricultural area, shipping cotton, grain, fruit, and ore, and has various manufacturing industries, including canned fruits and vegetables, flour, and products from foundries and machine shops. It is home to Dalton Female College. Dalton was founded by Duff Green and others in 1848 and was incorporated in 1874. General Braxton Bragg retreated here after his defeat at Chattanooga in the last week of November 1863. Three weeks later, Bragg, who commanded the army in northern Georgia during the winter quarters here, was replaced by General Joseph E. Johnston. Johnston, with his force of 54,400, adopted defensive tactics to counter Sherman’s invasion of Georgia, which had 99,000 to 100,000 men in the Army of the Cumberland (60,000) under General G. H. Thomas, the Army of the Tennessee (25,000) under General J. B. McPherson, and the Army of the Ohio (14,000) under General J. M. Schofield. The Federal forces covered a stretch of 20 miles in a position south of Ringgold and between Ringgold and Dalton. Johnston’s line of defenses included Rocky Face Ridge, a wall of rock that the railway passes through about 5 miles northwest of the city, Mill Creek (1 mile north-northwest of Dalton), which he dammed to prevent crossing, and earthworks north and east of the city. On May 7, General McPherson moved towards Resaca, 18 miles south of Dalton, to secure the railway in Johnston’s rear, but he didn't attack Resaca, believing it was too well defended. Thomas, with Schofield on his left, on the 7th pushed the Confederates through Buzzard’s Roost Gap (the pass at Mill Creek) northwest of Dalton; at Dug Gap, 4 miles southwest of Dalton, on the 8th, a strong Federal assault led by Brigadier General John W. Geary failed to dislodge the Confederates from a nearly impregnable position. On the 11th, the main body of Sherman’s army followed McPherson toward Resaca, and Johnston, having evacuated Dalton on the night of the 12th, was thus forced, after five days of maneuvering and skirmishing, to march to Resaca to meet Sherman there.

See J. D. Cox, The Atlanta Campaign (New York, 1882); Johnson and Buel, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (4 vols., New York, 1887); and Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, series 1, vols. 32, 38, 39, 45, 49; series ii., vol. 8.

See J. D. Cox, The Atlanta Campaign (New York, 1882); Johnson and Buel, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (4 vols., New York, 1887); and Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, series 1, vols. 32, 38, 39, 45, 49; series ii., vol. 8.


DALTON-IN-FURNESS, a market town in the North Lonsdale parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, 4 m. N.E. by N. of Barrow-in-Furness by the Furness railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 13,020. The church of St Mary is in the main a modern reconstruction, but retains ancient fragments and a font believed to have belonged to Furness Abbey. This fine ruin lies 3 m. south of Dalton (see Furness). St Mary’s churchyard contains the tomb of the painter George Romney, a native of the town. Of Dalton Castle there remains a square tower, showing decorated windows. Here was held the manorial court of Furness Abbey. There are numerous iron-ore mines in the parish, and ironworks at Askam-in-Furness, in the northern part of the district.

DALTON-IN-FURNESS, a market town in the North Lonsdale parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, 4 miles northeast of Barrow-in-Furness via the Furness railway. Population of urban district (1901) 13,020. The church of St Mary is mainly a modern rebuild but still has ancient fragments and a font thought to have come from Furness Abbey. This impressive ruin is located 3 miles south of Dalton (see Furness). St Mary’s churchyard holds the tomb of the painter George Romney, who was born in the town. What remains of Dalton Castle is a square tower with decorative windows. The manorial court of Furness Abbey was held here. There are several iron-ore mines in the parish, and ironworks located at Askam-in-Furness in the northern part of the district.


DALY, AUGUSTIN (1838-1899), American theatrical manager and playwright, was born in Plymouth, North Carolina, on the 20th of July 1838. He was dramatic critic for several New York papers from 1859, and he adapted or wrote a number of plays, Under the Gaslight (1867) being his first success. In 1869 he was the manager of the Fifth Avenue theatre, and in 1879 he built and opened Daly’s theatre in New York, and, in 1893, Daly’s theatre in London. At the former he gathered a company of players, headed by Miss Ada Rehan, which made for it a high reputation, and for them he adapted plays from foreign sources, and revived Shakespearean comedies in a manner before unknown in America. He took his entire company on tour, visiting England, Germany and France, and some of the best actors on the American stage have owed their training and first successes to him. Among these were Clara Morris, Sara Jewett, John Drew, Fanny Davenport, Maude Adams, Mrs Gilbert and many others. Daly was a great book-lover, and his valuable library was dispersed by auction after his death, which occurred in Paris on the 7th of June 1899. Besides plays, original and adapted, he wrote Woffington: a Tribute to the Actress and the Woman (1888).

DALY, AUGUSTIN (1838-1899), American theater manager and playwright, was born in Plymouth, North Carolina, on July 20, 1838. He served as a drama critic for several New York newspapers starting in 1859, and he adapted or wrote numerous plays, with Under the Gaslight (1867) being his first major hit. In 1869, he managed the Fifth Avenue Theater, and in 1879, he built and opened Daly’s Theater in New York, followed by Daly’s Theater in London in 1893. At the New York venue, he assembled a company of performers led by Miss Ada Rehan, which earned a stellar reputation. He adapted plays from foreign works for them and revived Shakespearean comedies in a way that was previously unseen in America. He took his entire company on tour, visiting England, Germany, and France, and many of the best actors in American theater owe their training and early successes to him. Among these were Clara Morris, Sara Jewett, John Drew, Fanny Davenport, Maude Adams, Mrs. Gilbert, and many others. Daly was an avid book lover, and his valuable library was sold at auction after his death, which occurred in Paris on June 7, 1899. In addition to original and adapted plays, he wrote Woffington: a Tribute to the Actress and the Woman (1888).


DALYELL (or Dalziell or Dalzell), THOMAS (d. 1685), British soldier, was the son of Thomas Dalyell of Binns, Linlithgowshire, a cadet of the family of the earls of Carnwath, and of Janet, daughter of the 1st Lord Bruce of Kinloss, master of the rolls in England. He appears to have accompanied the Rochelle expedition in 1628, and afterwards, becoming colonel, served under Robert Munro, the general in Ireland. He was taken prisoner at the capitulation of Carrickfergus in August 1650, but was given a free pass, and having been banished from Scotland remained in Ireland. He was present at the battle of Worcester (3rd of September 1651), where his men surrendered, and he himself was captured and imprisoned in the Tower. In May he escaped abroad, and in 1654 took part in the Highland rebellion and was excepted from Cromwell’s act of grace, a reward of £200 being offered for his capture, dead or alive. The king’s cause being now for the time hopeless, Dalyell entered the 780 service of the tsar of Russia, and distinguished himself as general in the wars against the Turks and Tatars. He returned to Charles in 1665, and on the 19th of July 1666 he was appointed commander-in-chief in Scotland to subdue the Covenanters. He defeated them at Rullion Green and exercised his powers with great cruelty, his name becoming a terror to the peasants. He obtained several of the forfeited estates. On the 3rd of January 1667 he was made a privy councillor, and from 1678 till his death represented Linlithgow in the Scottish parliament. He was incensed by the choice of the duke of Monmouth as commander-in-chief in June 1679, and was confirmed in his original appointment by Charles, but in consequence did not appear at Bothwell Bridge till after the close of the engagement. On the 25th of November 1681, a commission was issued authorizing him to enrol the regiment afterwards known as the Scots Greys. He was continued in his appointment by James II., but died soon after the latter’s accession in August 1685. He married Agnes, daughter of John Ker of Cavers, by whom he had a son, Thomas, created a baronet in 1685, whose only son and heir, Thomas, died unmarried. The baronetage apparently became extinct, but it was assumed about 1726 by James Menteith, a son of the sister of the last baronet, who took the name of Dalyell; his last male descendant, Sir Robert Dalyell, died unmarried in 1886.

DALYELL (or Dalziell or Dalzell), THOMAS (d. 1685), a British soldier, was the son of Thomas Dalyell of Binns, Linlithgowshire, a branch of the family of the earls of Carnwath, and Janet, daughter of the 1st Lord Bruce of Kinloss, who was the master of the rolls in England. He seems to have taken part in the Rochelle expedition in 1628 and later became a colonel, serving under Robert Munro, the general in Ireland. He was captured during the surrender of Carrickfergus in August 1650 but was given a free pass. After being exiled from Scotland, he remained in Ireland. He was present at the battle of Worcester on September 3, 1651, where his troops surrendered, and he was captured and imprisoned in the Tower. In May, he escaped abroad, and in 1654, he got involved in the Highland rebellion and was excluded from Cromwell’s act of grace, with a reward of £200 offered for his capture, dead or alive. As the king’s cause seemed hopeless at that time, Dalyell joined the 780 service of the tsar of Russia, where he made a name for himself as a general in the wars against the Turks and Tatars. He returned to Charles in 1665, and on July 19, 1666, he was appointed commander-in-chief in Scotland to defeat the Covenanters. He defeated them at Rullion Green and exercised his authority with extreme cruelty, instilling fear among the peasants. He acquired several of the forfeited estates. On January 3, 1667, he was made a privy councillor, and from 1678 until his death, he represented Linlithgow in the Scottish parliament. He was outraged by the appointment of the duke of Monmouth as commander-in-chief in June 1679, and while he was confirmed in his original role by Charles, he didn’t appear at the Bothwell Bridge until after the battle was over. On November 25, 1681, a commission was issued that allowed him to enlist the regiment later known as the Scots Greys. He was kept in his position by James II., but died shortly after the latter took the throne in August 1685. He married Agnes, daughter of John Ker of Cavers, and they had a son, Thomas, who was made a baronet in 1685. His only son and heir, also named Thomas, died unmarried. The baronetage apparently became extinct, but it was assumed around 1726 by James Menteith, the son of the sister of the last baronet, who took on the name of Dalyell; his last male descendant, Sir Robert Dalyell, died unmarried in 1886.


DAM. (1) (A common Teutonic word, cf. Swed. and Ger. damm, and the Gothic verb faurdammjan, to block up), a barrier of earth or masonry erected to restrain, divert or contain a body of water, particularly in order to form a reservoir. (2) (Fr. dame, dame; Lat. domina, feminine of dominus, lord, master), the mother of an animal, now chiefly used of the larger quadrupeds, and particularly of a mare, the mother of a foal.

DAM. (1) (A common Teutonic word, see Swed. and Ger. damm, and the Gothic verb faurdammjan, to block up), a structure made of earth or stone built to hold back, redirect, or contain water, especially to create a reservoir. (2) (Fr. dame, lady; Lat. domina, feminine of dominus, lord, master), the mother of an animal, primarily used for larger mammals, especially a mare, the mother of a foal.


DAMAGES (through O. Fr. damage, mod. Fr. dommage, from Lat. damnum, loss), the compensation which a person who has suffered a legal wrong is by law entitled to recover from the person responsible for the wrong. Loss caused by an act which is not a legal wrong (damnum sine injuria) is not recoverable, e.g. where a father loses a young child by the negligence of a third party.

DAMAGES (from Old French damage, modern French dommage, from Latin damnum, meaning loss), refers to the compensation that someone who has experienced a legal wrong is entitled to receive from the person responsible for that wrong. Loss caused by an act that isn't considered a legal wrong (damnum sine injuria) cannot be recovered, for example, when a father loses a young child due to the negligence of a third party.

The principle of compensation in law makes its first appearance as a substitute for personal retaliation. In primitive law something of the nature of the Anglo-Saxon wer-gild, or the ποινή of the Iliad, appears to be universal. It marks out with great minuteness the measure of the compensation appropriate to each particular case of personal injury. And there is a resemblance between the legal compensation, as it may be called, and the compensation which an injured person, seeking his own remedy, would be likely to exact for himself. In such a system the two entirely different objects of personal satisfaction and criminal punishment are not clearly separated, and in fact, criminal and civil remedies were administered in the same proceeding.

The principle of compensation in law first appears as a replacement for personal revenge. In early legal systems, something similar to the Anglo-Saxon wer-gild or the penalty from the Iliad seems to be universal. It clearly defines the amount of compensation suitable for each specific case of personal injury. There is a similarity between legal compensation, as it can be called, and the compensation that an injured person would likely demand for themselves. In such a system, the two completely different goals of personal satisfaction and criminal punishment are not distinctly separated, and indeed, criminal and civil remedies were often handled in the same proceedings.

Under modern systems of law, the object of legal compensation is to place the injured person as nearly as possible in the situation in which he would have been but for the injury; and the controlling principle is that compensation should be determined so far as possible by the actual amount of the loss sustained. In England, civil proceedings for reparation and criminal proceedings for punishment are with few exceptions carefully kept separate. In Scotland, pursuit of the two kinds of remedies in the same proceeding is possible but very rare; but in France and other European states it is lawful and usual in the case of those delicts which are also punishable criminally.

Under modern legal systems, the aim of compensation is to put the injured person as close as possible to the situation they would have been in if the injury hadn't occurred; the main principle is that compensation should be based on the actual amount of loss suffered. In England, civil cases for compensation and criminal cases for punishment are generally kept separate, with few exceptions. In Scotland, pursuing both types of remedies in the same case is possible but very uncommon; however, in France and other European countries, it's legal and common to seek both for offenses that are also punishable by criminal law.

In the law of England the two historical systems of common law and equity viewed compensation or reparation from two different points of view. The principle of the common law was that the amount of every injury might be estimated by pecuniary valuation. The idea was no doubt derived from the old tariffs of were, bot and wite, in which the valuations were elaborate. Until 1858 (Cairns’ Act) courts of equity had no direct jurisdiction to award damages, and their business was to place the injured party in the actual position to which he was entitled (restitutio ad integrum). This difference comes out most clearly in cases of breach of contract. The common law, with a few partial exceptions, could do no more than compel the defaulter to make good the loss of the other party, by paying him an ascertained sum of money as damages. Equity, recognizing the fact that complete satisfaction was not in all cases to be obtained by mere money payment, compelled those who broke certain classes of contracts specifically to perform them, and in the case of acts or defaults not amounting to breach of contract, on satisfactory proof that a wrong was contemplated, would interfere to prevent it by injunction; while at common law no action could be brought until the injury was accomplished, and then only pecuniary damages could be obtained. Since the Judicature Acts this distinction has ceased and the appropriate remedy may be awarded in any division of the High Court of Justice.

In English law, the two historical systems of common law and equity looked at compensation or reparation from different angles. The principle of common law was that any injury could be measured in monetary terms. This idea likely came from the ancient tariffs of were, bot, and wite, where valuations were detailed. Until 1858 (Cairns’ Act), equity courts did not have direct authority to award damages, and their role was to restore the injured party to the position they were entitled to (restitutio ad integrum). This difference is most apparent in breach of contract cases. Common law, with a few exceptions, could only require the defaulting party to compensate the other party by paying a specified amount as damages. In contrast, equity acknowledged that complete satisfaction couldn't always be achieved through just a monetary payment, so it required certain contract breakers to fulfill their agreements. Additionally, in instances that didn't amount to a breach of contract, equity would intervene to prevent a wrongful act with an injunction if there was satisfactory evidence that a wrong was intended. Under common law, no action could be taken until the harm had occurred, and only then could monetary damages be pursued. Since the Judicature Acts, this distinction has disappeared, and the appropriate remedy can be granted in any division of the High Court of Justice.

Under the common law damages were always assessed by a jury. Under the existing procedure in England they may be assessed (1) by a jury under the directions of a judge; (2) by a judge alone or sitting with assessors; (3) by a referee, official or special, or officer of the courts with or without the assistance of mercantile or other assessors; (4) by a consensual tribunal such as an arbitrator or valuer selected by the parties. Whatever the mode of assessment, it is subject to review if the assessors have clearly mistaken the proper measure of damage.

Under common law, damages were always determined by a jury. In the current process in England, they can be assessed (1) by a jury following a judge's directions; (2) by a judge alone or with assessors; (3) by a referee, either official or special, or a court officer with or without help from business or other assessors; (4) by a mutual tribunal like an arbitrator or valuer chosen by the parties. No matter how they are assessed, it can be reviewed if the assessors have clearly gotten the correct measure of damage wrong.

In the case of assessment by a jury, the verdict may be set aside because the damages are clearly excessive or palpably insufficient, or arrived at by some irregular conduct, e.g. by setting down the sum which each juryman would give and dividing the result by twelve. The appellate court, however, cannot, without the consent of the parties, itself fix the amount of damages in a case which has been submitted to a jury (Watt v. Watt, 1905, Appeal Cases 115).

In a jury trial, the verdict can be overturned if the damages are obviously too high or clearly too low, or if they result from some improper conduct, like having each juror write down the amount they would award and then dividing that total by twelve. However, the appellate court can't set the amount of damages in a case that was decided by a jury without the agreement of the parties involved (Watt v. Watt, 1905, Appeal Cases 115).

The courts have gradually evolved certain rules or principles for the proper assessment of damages, although extreme difficulty is found in their application to concrete cases. A distinction is drawn between general and special Measure of damages. damages. (1) General damage is that implied by law as necessarily flowing from the breach of right, and requiring no proof. (2) Special damage is that in fact caused by the wrong. Under existing practice this form of damage cannot be recovered unless it has been specifically claimed and proved, or unless the best available particulars or details have been before trial communicated to the party against whom it is claimed.

The courts have gradually developed certain rules or principles for assessing damages, although it can be extremely difficult to apply them to specific cases. A distinction is made between general and special Damages assessment. damages. (1) General damage is that implied by law as naturally resulting from the infringement of a right, which requires no proof. (2) Special damage is that actually caused by the wrongdoing. According to current practice, this type of damage can't be recovered unless it has been specifically claimed and proven, or unless the best available details or specifics have been communicated to the party being claimed against before the trial.

Contracts.—“The law imposes or implies a term that upon breach of contract damages must be paid.” The general tendency of legal decisions in cases of contract is (i.) to make the amount of damages which may be awarded a matter of legal certainty, (ii.) to leave to a jury or like tribunal little more to do than find the facts, (iii.) and to revise the assessment if it is clear that it has been made in disregard of the terms of the contract or of the natural and direct consequences of the breach. The measure of damage, general speaking, is the sum necessary to place the aggrieved party in the same position so far as money will do it as if the contract had been performed. If the breach is proved, but the person complaining has suffered no real damage, he is entitled to have his legal right recognized by an award of what are called nominal damages, i.e. a sum just sufficient to carry a judgment in his favour on the infraction of his rights. Nominal damages, it will therefore be seen, are not the same as “small damages.” He is, however, also entitled to prove and recover the special or particular damage lawfully attributable to the breach. Where the contract is to pay a fixed sum of money or liquidated amount, the measure of damages for non-payment is the sum agreed to be paid and interest thereon at the rate stipulated in the contract or recognized by law.

Contracts.—“The law requires or assumes that if a contract is broken, damages must be paid.” Generally, court rulings in contract cases tend to (i.) make the amount of damages that can be awarded clear and definite, (ii.) allow a jury or similar body to primarily focus on determining the facts, and (iii.) review the damage assessment if it's evident that it disregards the contract terms or the natural and direct results of the breach. The measure of damages, in broad terms, is the amount needed to put the affected party in the same financial position they would have been in if the contract had been fulfilled. If the breach is proven, but the person raising the complaint has not suffered any significant damage, they are entitled to have their legal rights acknowledged through an award of what are called nominal damages, meaning a sum just enough to secure a judgment in their favor regarding the violation of their rights. It should be noted that nominal damages are not the same as “small damages.” However, this person also has the right to prove and recover any specific or particular damages that can be lawfully linked to the breach. When the contract specifies a fixed sum of money or a liquidated amount, the measure of damages for non-payment is the amount agreed upon and any interest stipulated in the contract or recognized by law.

The law is the same in Scotland and in France (Civil Code, art. 1153). In some contracts the parties themselves fix the sum to be paid as damages if the contract is not fulfilled. These damages are described as liquidated, in Scots law stipulated or estimated. It would be supposed that the sum thus fixed would be the proper damages to be awarded. And under the French 781 Civil Code (arts. 1152, 1153, 1780) the stipulation of the parties as to the damages to be paid for breach of a stipulation other than for paying a sum of money is binding on the courts. But in England, Scotland and the United States, courts disregard the words used, and inquire into the real nature of the transaction in order to see whether the sum fixed is to be treated as ascertained damage or as a penalty to be held in terrorem over the defaulter, and in the latter case, notwithstanding the stipulation, will require proof of the actual loss. In Kemble v. Farren (1829, 6 Bingham, 141), a contract between a manager and an actor provided that for a breach of any of the stipulations therein, the sum of £1000 should be payable by the defaulter, not as a penalty, but as liquidated and ascertained damages. Yet, the court, observing that under the stipulations of the contract the sum of £1000, if it were taken to be liquidated damages, might become payable for mere non-payment of a trifling sum, held that it was not fixed as damages, but as a penalty only. The case in which an agreed sum is most usually treated as a penalty is a bond to pay a fixed sum containing a condition that it shall be void if certain acts are done or a certain smaller sum paid. Another case is where a single lump sum is fixed as the liquidated amount of damage to be paid for doing or failing to do a number of different things of very varying degrees of importance (Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron Co., 1887, 11 A.C. 333). But the courts have accepted as creating a contractual measure of damage a stipulation to finish sewerage works by a given day (Law v. Redditch Local Board, 1892, 1 Q.B. 127); or to complete torpedo boats within a limited time for a foreign government (Clydebank Engineering Co. v. Yzquierda, 1905, A.C. 6). In this last case the law lords indicated that the provision of an agreed sum was peculiarly appropriate in view of the difficulty of showing the exact damage which a state sustains by non-delivery of a warship. Where the damage is not liquidated or agreed it is assessed to upon evidence as to the actual loss naturally and directly flowing from the breach of contract.

The law is the same in Scotland and France (Civil Code, art. 1153). In some contracts, the parties themselves decide the amount to be paid as damages if the contract isn’t fulfilled. These damages are called liquidated, while in Scots law they are termed stipulated or estimated. It would be assumed that the amount set is the appropriate damages to be awarded. Under the French Civil Code (arts. 1152, 1153, 1780), the parties’ agreement regarding damages for breaching a stipulation other than paying a sum of money is binding on the courts. However, in England, Scotland, and the United States, courts often ignore the terms used and look at the actual nature of the transaction to determine whether the set amount should be seen as established damages or as a penalty meant to intimidate the defaulter. In the latter case, despite the agreement, they will require proof of the actual loss. In Kemble v. Farren (1829, 6 Bingham, 141), a contract between a manager and an actor stated that for any breach of the stipulations, the defaulter would owe £1000, not as a penalty, but as liquidated and ascertained damages. However, the court found that if the £1000 were considered liquidated damages, it could become payable simply for not paying a trivial amount, ruling that it was not fixed as damages, but rather as a penalty. A situation in which an agreed sum is most commonly treated as a penalty is a bond to pay a fixed amount that becomes void if certain actions are taken or a smaller sum is paid. Another example is when a single lump sum is established as the liquidated damages for performing or failing to perform various tasks of different importance (Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron Co., 1887, 11 A.C. 333). However, courts have recognized a contractual measure of damage in cases like a stipulation to finish sewerage works by a specified date (Law v. Redditch Local Board, 1892, 1 Q.B. 127) or to complete torpedo boats for a foreign government within a limited time (Clydebank Engineering Co. v. Yzquierda, 1905, A.C. 6). In the latter case, the law lords pointed out that providing an agreed amount was particularly suitable given the difficulty in demonstrating the exact damages a state suffers due to the non-delivery of a warship. When damages are not liquidated or agreed upon, they are assessed based on evidence of the actual loss that naturally and directly stems from the breach of contract.

In contracts for the sale of goods the measure of damages is fixed by statute. Where the buyer wrongfully refuses or neglects to accept and pay for, or the seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods, the measure is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting in the ordinary course of events from the buyer’s or seller’s breach of contract. Where there is an available market for the goods in question, the measure of damages is prima facie to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price at the time or times when the goods ought to have been accepted or delivered, or if no such time was fixed for acceptance or delivery, then at the time of refusal to accept or deliver (Sale of Goods Act 1893, §§ 50, 51).

In contracts for the sale of goods, the measure of damages is set by law. If the buyer wrongfully refuses or fails to accept and pay for the goods, or if the seller wrongfully fails to deliver the goods, the measure is the estimated loss that directly and naturally results in the usual course of events from the breach of contract by the buyer or seller. If there is a market for the goods in question, the measure of damages is typically determined by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price at the time when the goods should have been accepted or delivered. If no specific time was set for acceptance or delivery, then it is based on the time of refusal to accept or deliver (Sale of Goods Act 1893, §§ 50, 51).

Where there is no market, the value is fixed by the price of the nearest available substitute. Where the sufferer, at the request of the person in default, postpones purchase or sale, any increased loss thereby caused falls on the defaulter. If the buyer, before the time fixed for delivery, has resold the goods to a sub-vendor, he cannot claim against his own vendor any damages which the sub-vendor may recover against him for breach of contract, because he ought to have gone into the market and purchased other goods. But this is subject to modification in cases falling within the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854, 9 Exchequer, 341). But trouble and expense incurred by the seller of finding a new purchaser or other goods may be taken account of in assessing the damages.

Where there’s no market, the value is determined by the price of the closest available substitute. If the buyer, at the request of the person who failed to fulfill their obligation, delays the purchase or sale, any additional loss caused by this will be on the person at fault. If the buyer has sold the goods to another vendor before the delivery date, he can’t claim any damages from his own vendor for any penalties that the second vendor may enforce against him for breaking the contract, because he should have gone to the market and bought other goods. However, this can be adjusted in situations that fall under the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854, 9 Exchequer, 341). Additionally, any trouble and costs incurred by the seller in finding a new buyer or other goods can be considered when calculating damages.

Where the goods delivered are not as contracted the buyer may as a rule sue the seller for a breach of warranty, or set it up as reduction of price. Where the warranty is of quality the loss is prima facie the difference between the value of the goods delivered when delivered and the value which they would have then had if they had answered to the warranty (Sale of Goods Act 1893, § 53). In an American case, where a person had agreed with a boarding-house keeper for a year, and quitted the house within the time, it was held that the measure of damages was not the price stipulated to be paid, but only the loss caused by the breach of contract. In contracts to marry, a special class of considerations is recognized, and the jury in assessing damages will take notice of the conduct of the parties. The social position and means of the defendant may be given in evidence to show what the plaintiff has lost by the breach of contract.

If the goods delivered don't match what was agreed upon, the buyer can generally sue the seller for breach of warranty or use it as a reason for reducing the price. When the warranty concerns quality, the loss is usually the difference between the value of the goods when delivered and the value they would have had if they met the warranty (Sale of Goods Act 1893, § 53). In an American case, where someone had made a one-year agreement with a boarding-house owner and left before the year was up, the court decided that the measure of damages wasn't the agreed price but only the actual loss caused by breaking the contract. In marriage contracts, a specific set of considerations applies, and the jury will evaluate damages according to the behavior of both parties. The social status and financial standing of the defendant may be presented as evidence to show what the plaintiff has lost due to the breach of contract.

On a breach of contract to replace stock lent, the measure of damages is the price of the stock on the day when it ought to have been delivered, or on the day of trial, at the plaintiff’s option.

On a breach of contract to replace borrowed stock, the amount of damages is the price of the stock on the day it should have been delivered, or on the day of the trial, depending on what the plaintiff chooses.

In contracts for the sale of realty, the measure of damage for breach by the vendor is the amount of any deposit paid by the would-be purchaser and of the expenses thrown away. But the purchaser may, in a proper case, obtain specific performance, and if he has been cheated may obtain damages in an action for deceit.

In real estate sale contracts, if the seller breaches the agreement, the damages are typically the amount of any deposit the potential buyer paid, along with any expenses incurred. However, the buyer may be able to seek specific performance in appropriate situations, and if they have been deceived, they can pursue damages through a lawsuit for fraud.

Breaches of trust are in a sense distinct from breaches of contract, as they fell under the jurisdiction of courts of equity and not of the common law courts. The rule applied was to require a defaulting trustee to make good to the beneficiaries any loss flowing from a breach of trust and not to allow him to set off against this liability any gain to the trust fund resulting from a different breach of trust or from good management (Lewin on Trusts, ed. 1904, 1146).

Breaches of trust are somewhat different from breaches of contract, as they are handled by courts of equity rather than common law courts. The rule in these cases is that a defaulting trustee must make up for any loss that beneficiaries suffer due to a breach of trust and cannot offset this responsibility with any gains to the trust fund that come from a separate breach of trust or from good management (Lewin on Trusts, ed. 1904, 1146).

In estimating the proper amount to be assessed as damages for a breach of contract, it is not permissible to include every loss caused by the act or default upon which the claim for damages is based. The damage to be awarded must be that fairly and naturally arising from the breach under ordinary circumstances or the special circumstances of the particular contract, or in other words, which may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time of making the contract. The chief authority for this rule is the case of Hadley v. Baxendale (1854, 9 Exch. 341), which has been accepted in Scotland and the United States and throughout the British empire, and often differs little, if at all, from the rule adopted in the French civil code (art. 1150). In that case damages were sought for the loss of profits caused by a steam mill being kept idle, on account of the delay of the defendants in sending a new shaft which they had contracted to make. The court held the damage to be too remote, and stated the proper rule as follows:—

In determining the appropriate amount to be assessed as damages for a breach of contract, it’s not acceptable to include every loss resulting from the act or failure that led to the damage claim. The damages awarded must arise fairly and naturally from the breach under normal circumstances or the specific circumstances of the contract, meaning they should be reasonably anticipated by both parties when the contract was made. The main authority for this principle is the case of Hadley v. Baxendale (1854, 9 Exch. 341), which has been recognized in Scotland, the United States, and throughout the British Empire, often aligning closely with the rule in the French civil code (art. 1150). In that case, damages were claimed for lost profits due to a steam mill being inactive because of the defendants’ delay in providing a new shaft they had agreed to manufacture. The court deemed the damage too remote and articulated the proper rule as follows:—

“Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e. according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach of it. Now if the special circumstances under which the contract was actually made were communicated by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and thus known to both parties, the damages resulting from such contract which they would reasonably contemplate would be the amount of injury which would ordinarily flow from a breach of contract under these special circumstances so known and communicated. But on the other hand, if those special circumstances were wholly unknown to the party breaking the contract, he at the most could only be supposed to have had in his mind the amount of injury which would arise generally, and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any special circumstances, from such breach of contract.”1

“Where two parties have a contract and one of them breaks it, the damages that the other party should receive for that breach should be what can fairly and reasonably be seen as either resulting naturally—meaning in the usual course of things—from the breach itself, or what both parties could reasonably have anticipated at the time they made the contract as a likely outcome of the breach. If the specific circumstances surrounding the contract were communicated by the plaintiffs to the defendants and were understood by both parties, the damages they would reasonably foresee would be the amount of harm that would typically result from a breach of contract under those known and communicated special circumstances. However, if those special circumstances were completely unknown to the party that broke the contract, they could only reasonably be expected to have considered the general harm that would arise from such a breach without any special circumstances taken into account.”1

The rule is, however, only a general guide, and does not obviate the necessity of inquiring in each case what are the natural or contemplated damages. In an action by the proprietor of a theatre, it was alleged that the defendant had written a libel on one of the plaintiff’s singers, whereby she was 782 deterred from appearing on the stage, and the plaintiff lost his profits; such loss was held to be too remote to be the ground of an action for damages. In Smeed v. Foord (1 Ellis and Ellis, 602), the defendant contracted to deliver a threshing-machine to the plaintiff, a farmer, knowing that it was needed to thresh the wheat in the field. Damages were sought for injury done to the wheat by rain in consequence of the machine not having been delivered in time, and also for a fall in the market before the grain could be got ready. It was held that the first claim was good, as the injury might have been anticipated, but that the second was bad. When, through the negligence of a railway company in delivering bales of cotton, the plaintiffs, having no cotton to work with, were obliged to keep their workmen unemployed, it was held that the wages paid and the profits lost were too remote for damages. On the other hand, where the defendant failed to keep funds on hand to meet the drafts of the plaintiff, so that a draft was returned dishonoured, and his business in consequence was for a time suspended and injured, the plaintiff was held entitled to recover damage for such loss.

The rule is just a general guide and doesn’t eliminate the need to examine what the actual or expected damages are in each situation. In a lawsuit brought by a theater owner, it was claimed that the defendant had written a defamatory statement about one of the plaintiff’s singers, which prevented her from performing on stage, leading the plaintiff to lose profits. However, this loss was considered too indirect to warrant a lawsuit for damages. In Smeed v. Foord (1 Ellis and Ellis, 602), the defendant agreed to deliver a threshing machine to the plaintiff, a farmer, knowing it was needed to thresh the wheat in the field. Damages were claimed for damage to the wheat caused by rain because the machine wasn’t delivered on time, and also for a drop in market prices before the grain could be prepared. The court held that the first claim was valid since the damage could have been anticipated, but the second claim was not valid. In a different case, when a railway company was negligent in delivering bales of cotton, the plaintiffs had no cotton to work with, forcing them to keep their workers idle. The court ruled that the wages paid and the lost profits were too indirect for damages. On the other hand, when the defendant failed to maintain funds to cover the plaintiff's drafts, resulting in a dishonored draft and temporarily harming the plaintiff’s business, the plaintiff was allowed to recover damages for that loss.

The rule that the contract furnishes the measure of the damages does not prevail in the case of unconscionable, i.e. unreasonable, absurd or impossible contracts. The old school-book juggle in geometrical progression has more than once been before the courts as the ground of an action. Thus, when a man agreed to pay for a horse a barley-corn per nail, doubling it every nail, and the amount calculated as 32 nails was 500 quarters of barley, the judge directed the jury to disregard the contract, and give as damages the value of the horse. And when a defendant had agreed for £5 to give the plaintiff two grains of rye on Monday, four on the next Monday,2 and so on doubling it every Monday, it was contended that the contract was impossible, as all the rye in the world would not suffice for it; but one of the judges said that, though foolish, it would hold in law, and the defendant ought to pay something for his folly. And when a man had promised £1000 to the plaintiff if he should find his owl, the jury were directed to mitigate the damages.

The rule that the contract determines the amount of damages doesn’t apply to unconscionable, meaning unreasonable, absurd, or impossible contracts. The old school textbook example of geometrical progression has appeared in court more than once as the basis for a lawsuit. For instance, when a man agreed to pay for a horse one barley-corn per nail, doubling the amount for each nail, and the total calculated for 32 nails was 500 quarters of barley, the judge told the jury to ignore the contract and award damages based on the horse's value. Additionally, when a defendant agreed for £5 to give the plaintiff two grains of rye on one Monday, four on the next Monday, and so forth, doubling it every Monday, it was argued that the contract was impossible since no amount of rye in the world would be enough; however, one of the judges stated that, although it was foolish, it would still be valid in law, and the defendant should pay something for his mistake. Moreover, when a man promised £1000 to the plaintiff if he found his owl, the jury was instructed to reduce the damages.

Interest is recoverable as damages at common law only upon mercantile securities, such as bills of exchange and promissory notes or where a promise to pay interest has been made in express terms or may be implied from the usage of trade or other circumstances [Mayne, Damages (7th ed.) 166]. Under the Civil Procedure Act 1833, the jury is allowed to give interest by way of damages on debts or sums payable at a certain time, or if not so payable, from the date of demand in writing, and in actions on policies of insurance, and in actions of tort arising out of conversion or seizure of goods.

Interest can be recovered as damages at common law only on commercial documents like bills of exchange and promissory notes, or when there’s a clear promise to pay interest, or it can be implied based on trade practices or other circumstances [Mayne, Damages (7th ed.) 166]. According to the Civil Procedure Act 1833, the jury is permitted to award interest as damages on debts or amounts due at a specific time, or, if not due at that time, from the date of a written demand. This also applies to insurance policy actions and tort actions resulting from the conversion or seizure of goods.

In the United States, interest is in the discretion of the court, and is made to depend on the equity of the case. In both England and America compound interest, or interest on interest, appears to have been regarded with the horror that formerly attached to usury. Lord Eldon would not recognize as valid an agreement to pay compound interest. And Chancellor Kent held that compound interest could not be taken except upon a special agreement made after the simple interest became due.

In the United States, whether interest is granted is up to the court's discretion and depends on the fairness of the situation. In both England and America, compound interest, or interest on interest, has often been viewed with the same disdain that used to be directed at usury. Lord Eldon refused to acknowledge any agreement to pay compound interest as valid. Additionally, Chancellor Kent stated that compound interest couldn't be collected unless there was a specific agreement made after the simple interest was due.

In Scotland compound interest is not allowed by way of damages.

In Scotland, compound interest is not permitted as a form of damages.

Torts.—In actions arising otherwise than from breach of contract (i.e. of tort, delict or quasi-delict), the principles applied to the assessment of damage in cases arising ex contractu are generally applicable (The Notting Hill, 1884, 9 P.D. 105); but from the nature of the case less precision in assessment is attainable. The remoteness of the damage claimed is a ground for excluding it from the assessment. In some actions of tort the damages can be calculated with exactness just as in cases of contract, e.g. in most cases of interference with rights of property or injury to property. Thus, for wrongful dispossession from a plantation (in Samoa) it was held that the measure of damage was the annual value of the produce of the lands when wrongfully seized, less the cost of management, and that the wilful character of the seizure did not justify the infliction of a penalty over and above the loss to the plaintiff (McArthur v. Cornwall, 1892, A.C. 75). Where minerals are wrongfully severed and carried away, the damage is assessed by calculating the value of the mineral as a chattel and deducting the reasonable expense of getting it. But where the interference with property, whether real or personal, is attended by circumstances of aggravation such as crime or fraud or wanton insult, it is well established that additional damages may be awarded which in effect are penal or vindictive. In actions for injuries to the person or to reputation, it is difficult to make the damages a matter for exact calculation, and it has been found impossible or inexpedient by the courts to prevent juries from awarding amounts which operate as a punishment of the delinquent rather than as a true assessment of the reparation due to the sufferer. And while a bad motive (malice) is seldom enough to give a cause of action, proof of its existence is a potent inducement to a jury to swell the assessment of damages, as evidence of bad character may induce them to reduce the damages to a derisory amount. In the case of injuries to the person caused by negligence, the tribunal considers, as part of the general damage, the actual pain and suffering, including nervous shock (but not wounded feelings) and the permanent or temporary character of the injury, and as special damage the loss of time and employment during recovery and the cost of cure. It is difficult by any arithmetical calculation to value pain and suffering; nor is it easy to value the effect of a permanent injury; and in the Workmen’s Compensation Act and Employers’ Liability Act, an attempt has been made in the case of workmen to assess by reference to the earnings of the injured person.

Torts.—In cases that arise outside of breach of contract (i.e., tort, delict, or quasi-delict), the principles used to assess damages in contract cases generally apply (The Notting Hill, 1884, 9 P.D. 105); however, due to the nature of tort cases, there is usually less precision in assessment. The distance of the claimed damage is a reason for excluding it from the assessment. In some tort cases, damages can be calculated precisely, similar to contract cases, such as in most instances involving interference with property rights or property damage. For example, in a case of wrongful dispossession from a plantation (in Samoa), it was determined that the measure of damage was the annual value of the land's produce when wrongfully taken, minus the management costs, and the intentional nature of the seizure did not warrant an additional penalty beyond the plaintiff's loss (McArthur v. Cornwall, 1892, A.C. 75). When minerals are wrongfully taken and removed, damages are assessed by calculating the value of the minerals as personal property and subtracting the reasonable cost to retrieve them. However, when property interference, whether real or personal, involves aggravating factors like crime, fraud, or outright insult, it's well established that additional damages may be awarded that function as punitive or vindictive. In cases of personal injury or damage to reputation, it’s challenging to precisely calculate damages, and courts have found it impossible or impractical to stop juries from awarding sums that serve more as punishment for the wrongdoer than as true compensation for the victim. While a malicious intent is rarely sufficient to establish a cause of action, evidence of such can strongly motivate a jury to increase damage awards, just as proof of bad character may lead them to significantly lower damages. In cases of personal injury caused by negligence, the tribunal considers general damages to include actual pain and suffering, including nervous shock (but not hurt feelings), and the permanent or temporary nature of the injury. Special damages include lost time and income during recovery and medical expenses. Accurately valuing pain and suffering through mathematical calculation is difficult; likewise, it’s challenging to assess the impact of a permanent injury. In the Workmen’s Compensation Act and Employers’ Liability Act, an attempt has been made to evaluate damages for workers based on their earnings.

In the case of such wrongs as assault, arrest or prosecution, the motives of the defendant naturally affect the amount of general damage awarded, even when not essential elements in the case, and the damages are “at large.” Any other rule would enable a man to distribute blows as he can utter curses at a statutory tariff of so much a curse, according to his rank. This position was strongly asserted in the cases arising out of the celebrated “General Warrants” (1763) in the time of Lord Camden, who is reported in one case to have said, “damages are designed not only as a satisfaction to the injured person, but as a punishment to the guilty, and as a proof of the detestation in which the wrongful act is held by the jury.” In another case he mentioned the importance of the question at issue, the attempt to exercise arbitrary power, as a reason why the jury might give exemplary damages. Another judge, in another case, said “I remember a case when the jury gave £500 damages for knocking a man’s hat off; and the court refused a new trial.” And he urged that exemplary damages for personal insult would tend to prevent the practice of duelling.

In cases of wrongs like assault, arrest, or prosecution, the defendant's motives clearly influence the amount of general damages awarded, even if they aren't essential elements of the case, and the damages are “at large.” Any other rule would allow a person to dish out blows as easily as they can throw out insults at a set rate for each one, based on their status. This point was strongly emphasized in cases stemming from the famous “General Warrants” (1763) during Lord Camden’s time, who is quoted in one case saying, “damages are meant not just as compensation for the injured party, but also as punishment for the wrongdoer, and as a demonstration of the jury's disapproval of the wrongful act.” In another case, he highlighted the significance of the issue at stake, the effort to wield arbitrary power, as a reason for the jury to award exemplary damages. In yet another case, a different judge recounted, “I remember a case where the jury awarded £500 for knocking a man's hat off; and the court denied a new trial.” He argued that exemplary damages for personal insults would help deter the practice of dueling.

The right to give exemplary or punitive or (as they are sometimes called) vindictive damages is fully recognized both in England and in the United States, and especially in the following cases. (1) Against the co-respondent in a divorce suit. This right is the same as that recognized at common law in the abolished action of criminal conversation, but the damages awarded may by the court be applied for the maintenance and education of the children of the marriage or the maintenance of the offending wife. (2) In actions of trespass to land where the conduct of the defendant has been outrageous. (3) In actions of defamation spoken or written, attended by circumstances of aggravation, and the analogous action of malicious prosecution. (4) In the anomalous actions of seduction and breach of promise of marriage.

The right to award exemplary or punitive damages, often referred to as vindictive damages, is fully recognized in both England and the United States, especially in the following situations: (1) Against the co-respondent in a divorce case. This right is similar to what was recognized at common law in the now-abolished action of criminal conversation, but the damages awarded may be used by the court for the maintenance and education of the marriage's children or the support of the offending wife. (2) In cases of trespass to land where the defendant's behavior is outrageous. (3) In defamation cases, whether spoken or written, that involve aggravating circumstances, as well as in cases of malicious prosecution. (4) In the unusual cases of seduction and breach of promise to marry.

In actions for wrongs, as in those ex contractu, the damages may be general or special. In a few cases of tort, the action fails wholly if special damage is not proved, e.g. slander by imputing to a man vicious, unchaste or immoral conduct, slander of title to land or goods or nuisance.

In cases of wrongs, just like in those ex contractu, damages can be general or special. In some tort cases, the action completely fails if special damages aren’t proven, such as in slander where someone is accused of having immoral or unchaste behavior, slander regarding the title to property or goods, or cases of nuisance.

In theory, English law does not recognize “moral or intellectual” damage, such as was claimed by the South African Republic after the Jameson Raid. The law of Scotland allows 783 a solatium for wounded feelings, as does French law under the name of dommage moral, éprouvé par la partie lésée dans sa liberté, sa sûreté, son honneur, sa considération, ses affections légitimes ou dans la jouissance de son patrimoine. Under this head compensation is awarded to widow, child or sister, for the loss of husband, parent or brother, in addition to the actual pecuniary loss (Dalloz, Nouveau Code civil, art. 1382). Claims of damage for negligence are defeated by proof of what is known as contributory negligence (faute commune). In other claims of tort, as already stated, the conduct of the claimant may materially reduce the amount of his damages.

In theory, English law doesn't recognize "moral or intellectual" damage, like what was claimed by the South African Republic after the Jameson Raid. Scottish law allows for a solatium for hurt feelings, and French law does the same under the term dommage moral, éprouvé par la partie lésée dans sa liberté, sa sûreté, son honneur, sa considération, ses affections légitimes ou dans la jouissance de son patrimoine. Under this category, compensation is given to a widow, child, or sister for the loss of a husband, parent, or brother, in addition to the actual financial loss (Dalloz, Nouveau Code civil, art. 1382). Claims for damages due to negligence can be undermined by evidence of what’s called contributory negligence (faute commune). In other tort claims, as mentioned before, the behavior of the claimant may significantly lower the amount of damages awarded.

In cases of damages to ships or cargo by collision at sea, the rule of the old court of admiralty (derived from the civil law and preserved by the Judicature Acts) is that when both or all vessels are to blame, the whole amount of the loss is divided between them. The rule appears not to apply to cases where death or personal injury results from the collision (“Vera Cruz,” 1884, 14 A.C. 59. “Bernina,” 1888, 13 A.C. 1).

In situations where ships or cargo are damaged due to collisions at sea, the principle established by the old admiralty court (taken from civil law and maintained by the Judicature Acts) states that when both or all vessels are at fault, the total loss is shared among them. This rule seems not to apply in cases where death or personal injury occurs as a result of the collision (“Vera Cruz,” 1884, 14 A.C. 59. “Bernina,” 1888, 13 A.C. 1).

Costs.—The costs of a legal proceeding are no longer treated as damages to be assessed by the jury, nor do they depend on any act of the jury. The right to receive them depends on the court, and they are taxed or assessed by its officers (see Costs). In a few cases where costs cannot be given, e.g. on compulsory acquisition of land in London, the assessing tribunal is invited to add to the compensation price the owner’s expense in the compensation proceedings.

Costs.—The costs of a legal case are no longer considered damages to be evaluated by the jury, nor do they rely on any action from the jury. The entitlement to receive these costs is determined by the court, and they are calculated or assessed by its officials (see Costs). In some situations where costs cannot be awarded, such as in the compulsory acquisition of land in London, the assessing tribunal is asked to include the owner’s expenses from the compensation proceedings in the compensation amount.

Death.—In English law a right to recover damages for a tort as a general rule was lost on the death of the sufferer or of the delinquent. The cause of action was considered not to survive. This rule differs from that of Scots law (under which the claim for damages arises at the moment of injury and is not affected by the death of either party). The English rule has been criticized as barbarous, and has been considerably broken in upon by legislation, in cases of taking the goods of another (4 Edw. III., c. 7, 1330), and injuries to real or personal property (3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 42, 1833), but continues in force as to such matters as defamation, malicious prosecution and trespass to the person. By the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (commonly called Lord Campbell’s Act), it is enacted that wherever a wrongful act would have entitled the injured person to recover damages (if death had not ensued), the person who in such case would have been liable “shall be liable to an action for damages for the pecuniary loss which the death has caused to certain persons, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony.” The only persons by whom or for whose benefit such an action may be brought are the husband, wife, parent and child (including grandchild and stepchild, but not illegitimate child) of the deceased. The right of action and the measure of damages are statutory and distinct from the right which the deceased had till he died. It was held in Osborne v. Gillett, 1873, L.R. 8 Ex. 88, and has since been approved (Clark v. London General Omnibus Co., 1906, 2 K.B. 648), that no person can recover damages for the death of another wrongfully killed by the act of a third person, unless he claims through or represents the person killed, and unless that person in case of an injury short of death would have had a good claim to recover damages.

Death.—In English law, the right to claim damages for a tort generally ends with the death of either the victim or the wrongdoer. The cause of action is seen as not surviving. This rule is different from Scots law, where the claim for damages begins at the moment of injury and isn’t affected by either party's death. The English rule has been criticized as harsh and has been significantly modified by legislation, particularly in cases involving the wrongful taking of someone's goods (4 Edw. III., c. 7, 1330) and injuries to real or personal property (3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 42, 1833), but it still applies in matters like defamation, malicious prosecution, and personal trespass. According to the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (commonly called Lord Campbell’s Act), if a wrongful act would have allowed the injured person to recover damages (if death had not occurred), then the person liable for this act “shall be liable to an action for damages for the financial loss caused by the death to certain individuals, even if the death was caused in circumstances that legally amount to felony.” The only individuals who can bring such an action, or benefit from it, are the spouse, parent, and child (including grandchild and stepchild, but not an illegitimate child) of the deceased. The right to bring this action and the amount of damages are defined by statute and are separate from the rights the deceased had while alive. It was determined in Osborne v. Gillett, 1873, L.R. 8 Ex. 88, and has been affirmed in subsequent cases (Clark v. London General Omnibus Co., 1906, 2 K.B. 648), that no one can claim damages for the death of another person killed wrongfully by a third party unless they make their claim through or represent the deceased, and unless the deceased would have had a valid claim for damages had they survived an injury that did not result in death.

In Scotland the law of compensation for breach of contract is substantially the same as in England. In cases of delict or quasi-delict, the measure of reparation is a fair and reasonable compensation for the advantage which the sufferer would, but for the wrong, have enjoyed and has lost as a natural and proximate result of the wrong, coupled with a solatium for wounded feelings. The claim for reparation vests as a debt when it arises and survives to the representatives of the sufferer, and against the representatives of the delinquent. In other words, the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona does not apply in Scots law; and even in cases of murder there has always been recognized a right to “assythement.”

In Scotland, the compensation law for breach of contract is pretty much the same as in England. In cases of delict or quasi-delict, the amount of compensation is based on what the victim would have reasonably gained had the wrongdoing not occurred, and what they have lost as a direct result of it, along with compensation for emotional distress. The claim for compensation becomes a debt as soon as it arises and can be passed on to the victim's representatives, and can also be claimed against the representatives of the offender. In other words, the principle actio personalis moritur cum persona does not apply in Scots law; and even in murder cases, there has always been a recognized right to “assythement.”

See also Mayne on Damages, 7th ed.; Sedgwick on Damage; Bell, Principles of Law of Scotland.

See also Mayne on Damages, 7th ed.; Sedgwick on Damage; Bell, Principles of Law of Scotland.

(W. F. C.)

1 In the Indian Contracts Code (Act xii. of 1872), the rule is thus summarized:—

1 In the Indian Contracts Code (Act xii. of 1872), the rule is summarized as follows:—

“When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. Such compensation is not to be given for any remote or indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.... In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance must be taken into account” (§ 73).

“When a contract is broken, the party who suffers as a result is entitled to receive compensation from the party who broke the contract for any loss or damage that occurred because of it. This includes losses that naturally arose in the usual course of things due to the breach, or that the parties were aware could likely happen when they made the contract. Compensation won't be provided for any distant or indirect losses or damages caused by the breach.... When calculating the loss or damage from a breach of contract, the options for remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance must be considered” (§ 73).

2 Quolibet alio die lunae, which was translated by some every Monday, and by others every other Monday. The amount in the latter case would have been 125 quarters, in the former 524,288,000 quarters.

2 Quolibet alio die lunae, which was translated by some as every Monday, and by others as every other Monday. The amount in the latter case would have been 125 quarters, while in the former it would be 524,288,000 quarters.


DAMANHŪR, a town of Lower Egypt, 38 m. E.S.E. of Alexandria by rail, capital of the richly-cultivated province of Behera. It is the ancient Timenhōr, “town of Horus,” which in Ptolemaic times was capital of a nome and lay on the Canopic branch of the Nile. Its name and other circumstances imply that Horus (= Apollo) was worshipped there in the same form as at Edfu (Brugsch, Dictionnaire géographique, p. 521), but its Greek name, Hermopolis Parva, should indicate Thoth as the local god. This apparent contradiction is perhaps due to some early misunderstanding that held its ground after the Greeks knew Egypt better. A much frequented fair is held at Damanhūr three times a year, and there are several cotton manufactories. Population (1907) 38,752.

DAMANHŪR, is a town in Lower Egypt, 38 miles E.S.E. of Alexandria by rail, and serves as the capital of the fertile province of Behera. It was the ancient Timenhōr, meaning "town of Horus," which in Ptolemaic times was the capital of a nome and situated on the Canopic branch of the Nile. Its name and other details suggest that Horus (= Apollo) was worshipped there similarly to how he was at Edfu (Brugsch, Dictionnaire géographique, p. 521), but its Greek name, Hermopolis Parva, would imply that Thoth was the local deity. This seeming contradiction may stem from an early misunderstanding that persisted even after the Greeks became more familiar with Egypt. A popular fair takes place in Damanhūr three times a year, and there are several cotton manufacturing facilities. Population (1907) 38,752.


DAMARALAND, a region of south-western Africa, bounded W. by the Atlantic, E. by the Kalahari, N. by Ovampoland, and S. by Great Namaqualand. It forms the central portion of German South-West Africa. Damaraland is alternatively known as Hereroland, both names being derived from the tribes inhabiting the region. The so-called Damara consist of two probably distinct peoples. They are known respectively as “the Hill Damara” and “the Cattle Damara,” i.e. those who breed cattle in the plains. The Hill Damara are Negroes with much Hottentot blood, and have adopted the Hottentot tongue, while the Cattle Damara are of distinct Bantu-Negro descent and speak a Bantu language. The term Damara (“Two Dama Women”) is of Hottentot origin, and is not used by the people, who call themselves Ova-herero, “the Merry People” (see Hottentots and Herero).

DAMARALAND, a region in southwestern Africa, is bordered to the west by the Atlantic, to the east by the Kalahari, to the north by Ovampoland, and to the south by Great Namaqualand. It makes up the central part of German South-West Africa. Damaraland is also called Hereroland, with both names coming from the tribes living in the area. The so-called Damara consist of two possibly different groups. They are known as “the Hill Damara” and “the Cattle Damara,” referring to those who raise cattle in the plains. The Hill Damara are people of African descent with significant Hottentot ancestry and have adopted the Hottentot language, while the Cattle Damara come from a distinct Bantu heritage and speak a Bantu language. The term Damara (“Two Dama Women”) comes from Hottentot and is not used by the people themselves, who call themselves Ova-herero, meaning “the Merry People” (see Hottentots and Herero).


DAMASCENING, or Damaskeening, a term sometimes applied to the production of damask steel, but properly the art of in-crusting wire of gold (and sometimes of silver or copper) on the surface of iron, steel or bronze. The surface upon which the pattern is to be traced is finely undercut with a sharp instrument, and the gold thread by hammering is forced into and securely held by the minute furrows of the cut surface. This system of ornamentation is peculiarly Oriental, having been much practised by the early goldsmiths of Damascus, and it is still eminently characteristic of Persian metal work.

DAMASCENING, or Damaskeening, a term sometimes used for making damask steel, actually refers to the technique of embedding gold wire (and sometimes silver or copper) into the surface of iron, steel, or bronze. The surface where the design will be created is carefully undercut with a sharp tool, and the gold thread is hammered in to fit snugly into the tiny grooves of the cut surface. This decorative technique is distinctly Oriental, having been widely practiced by early goldsmiths in Damascus, and it still remains a prominent feature of Persian metalwork.


DAMASCIUS, the last of the Neoplatonists, was born in Damascus about A.D. 480. In his early youth he went to Alexandria, where he spent twelve years partly as a pupil of Theon, a rhetorician, and partly as a professor of rhetoric. He then turned to philosophy and science, and studied under Hermeias and his sons, Ammonius and Heliodorus. Later on in life he migrated to Athens and continued his studies under Marinus, the mathematician, Zenodotus, and Isidore, the dialectician. He became a close friend of Isidore, succeeded him as head of the school in Athens, and wrote his biography, part of which is preserved in the Bibliotheca of Photius (see appendix to the Didot edition of Diogenes Laërtius). In 529 Justinian closed the school, and Damascius with six of his colleagues sought an asylum, probably in 532, at the court of Chosroes I., king of Persia. They found the conditions intolerable, and in 533, in a treaty between Justinian and Chosroes, it was provided that they should be allowed to return. It is believed that Damascius settled in Alexandria and there devoted himself to the writing of his works. The date of his death is not known.

DAMASCIUS, the last of the Neoplatonists, was born in Damascus around A.D. 480. As a young man, he moved to Alexandria, where he spent twelve years studying under Theon, a rhetoric teacher, and also teaching rhetoric himself. He then shifted his focus to philosophy and science, learning from Hermeias and his sons, Ammonius and Heliodorus. Later in life, he moved to Athens and continued his studies with mathematician Marinus, as well as Zenodotus and Isidore, the dialectician. He became a close friend of Isidore, succeeded him as the head of the school in Athens, and wrote his biography, part of which is preserved in the Bibliotheca of Photius (see appendix to the Didot edition of Diogenes Laërtius). In 529, Justinian shut down the school, and Damascius, along with six of his colleagues, sought refuge, likely in 532, at the court of Chosroes I, king of Persia. They found the living conditions unbearable, and in 533, a treaty between Justinian and Chosroes allowed them to return. It is thought that Damascius settled in Alexandria and dedicated himself to writing his works. The date of his death is unknown.

His chief treatise is entitled Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles (Ἀπορίαι καὶ χύσεις περὶ τῶν πρώτων ἀρχῶν). It examines into the nature and attributes of God and the human soul. This examination is, in two respects, in striking contrast to that of certain other Neoplatonist writers. It is conspicuously free from that Oriental mysticism which stultifies so much of the later pagan philosophy of Europe. Secondly, it contains no polemic against Christianity, to the doctrines of which, in fact, there is no allusion. Hence the charge of impiety which Photius brings against him. His main result is that God is infinite, and as such, incomprehensible; that his attributes of goodness, knowledge and power are credited to him only by inference from their effects; that this inference is logically valid and sufficient for human thought. He insists throughout on the unity and the indivisibility of God, whereas Plotinus and Porphyry had admitted not only a Trinity, but even an Ennead (nine-fold personality).

His main work is called Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles (Questions and discussions about the fundamental principles). It explores the nature and characteristics of God and the human soul. This exploration is notably different from that of some other Neoplatonist writers in two ways. First, it is clearly free from the Eastern mysticism that tends to confuse much of later European pagan philosophy. Second, it doesn't contain any criticisms of Christianity, to which, in fact, there is no reference. This leads to the accusation of impiety that Photius levels against him. His main conclusion is that God is infinite, and therefore, incomprehensible; that his qualities of goodness, knowledge, and power are attributed to him only based on their effects; and that this reasoning is logically sound and sufficient for human understanding. He consistently emphasizes the unity and indivisibility of God, while Plotinus and Porphyry acknowledged not only a Trinity but even a nine-fold personality (Ennead).

Interesting as Damascius is in himself, he is still more interesting 784 as the last in the long succession of Greek philosophers. (See Neoplatonism.)

Interesting as Damascius is on his own, he is even more fascinating as the last in the long line of Greek philosophers. (See Neoplatonism.)

Bibliography.—The Ἀπορίαι was partly edited by J. Kopp (1826), and in full by C. E. Ruelle (Paris, 1889). French trans. by Chaignet (1898). See T. Whittaker, The Neo-platonists (Cambridge, 1901); E. Zeller, History of Greek Philosophy; C. E. Ruelle, Le Philosophe Damascius (1861); Ch. Levêque, “Damascius” (Journal des savants, February 1891). See also works quoted under Neoplatonism and Alexandrian School.

References.—The Questions was partially edited by J. Kopp (1826) and entirely edited by C. E. Ruelle (Paris, 1889). The French translation was done by Chaignet (1898). Refer to T. Whittaker, The Neo-platonists (Cambridge, 1901); E. Zeller, History of Greek Philosophy; C. E. Ruelle, Le Philosophe Damascius (1861); Ch. Levêque, “Damascius” (Journal des savants, February 1891). Also, check the works cited under Neoplatonism and Alexandrian School.


DAMASCUS, the chief town of Syria, and the capital of a government province of the same name, 57 m. from Beirut, situated in 33° 30′ N., and 36° 18′ E.

DAMASCUS, is the main city of Syria and the capital of a province with the same name, located 57 miles from Beirut, at 33° 30′ N and 36° 18′ E.

History.—The origin of the city is unknown, and the popular belief that it is the oldest city in the world still inhabited has much to recommend it. It has been suggested that the ideogram by which it is indicated in Babylonian monuments literally means “fortress of the Amorites”; could this be proved it would be valuable testimony to its antiquity if not its origin. The city is mentioned in the document that describes the battle of the four kings against five, inserted in the book of Genesis (ch. xiv.): Abram (Abraham) is reported to have pursued the routed kings to Hobah north of Damascus (v. 15). The name of the steward of Abram’s establishment is given in Genesis xv. 2, as Dammesek Eliezer, which is explained in the Aramaic and Syriac versions as “Eliezer of Damascus.” This reading is adopted by the authorized version, but the Hebrew, as it stands, will not support it. There is probably here some textual corruption.

History.—The origins of the city are unknown, and the widespread belief that it is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world has a lot of support. It's been suggested that the ideogram used to represent it in Babylonian monuments literally means “fortress of the Amorites”; proving this would provide significant evidence of its age, if not its origin. The city is mentioned in the document that describes the battle between four kings and five, which is included in the book of Genesis (ch. xiv.): Abram (Abraham) is said to have chased the defeated kings to Hobah north of Damascus (v. 15). The name of the steward of Abram’s household is given in Genesis xv. 2 as Dammesek Eliezer, which is interpreted in the Aramaic and Syriac versions as “Eliezer of Damascus.” This interpretation is accepted in the authorized version, but the Hebrew text as it stands does not support it. There may be some textual corruption here.

In the period of the Egyptian suzerainty over Palestine in the eighteenth dynasty Damascus (whose name frequently appears in the Tell el-Amarna tablets) was capital of the small province of Ubi. The name of the city in the Tell el-Amarna correspondence is Dimashḳa. Towards the end of that period the overrunning of Palestine and Syria by the Khabiri and Suti, the forerunners of the Aramaean immigration, changed the conditions, language and government of the country. One of the first indications of this change that has been traced is the appearance of the Aramaean Darmesek for Damascus in an inscription of Rameses III.

During the time when Egypt ruled over Palestine in the eighteenth dynasty, Damascus (a name that often shows up in the Tell el-Amarna tablets) was the capital of the small province of Ubi. In the Tell el-Amarna correspondence, the city is referred to as Dimashḳa. Towards the end of this period, the invasion of Palestine and Syria by the Khabiri and Suti, who were the early waves of Aramaean immigrants, changed the country’s conditions, language, and governance. One of the first signs of this change that has been identified is the emergence of the Aramaean name Darmesek for Damascus in an inscription from Rameses III.

The growth of an independent kingdom with Damascus as centre must date from very early in the Aramaean occupation. It had reached such strength that though Tiglath-Pileser I. reduced the whole of northern Syria, and by the fame of his victories induced the king of Egypt to send him presents, yet he did not venture to attack Kadesh and Damascus, so that this kingdom acted as a “buffer” between the king of Assyria and the rising kingdom of Saul.

The rise of an independent kingdom centered around Damascus must have begun very early during the Aramaean occupation. It had become strong enough that, even though Tiglath-Pileser I conquered all of northern Syria and gained such a reputation from his victories that the king of Egypt sent him gifts, he still didn't dare to attack Kadesh and Damascus. This kingdom effectively served as a "buffer" between the king of Assyria and the emerging kingdom of Saul.

David, however, after his accession made an expedition against Damascus as a reprisal for the assistance the city had given his enemy Hadadezer, king of Zobah. The expedition was successful; David smote of the Syrians 22,000 men, and took and garrisoned the city; “and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts” (2 Sam. viii. 5, 6; 1 Chron. xviii. 5). This statement, it should be noticed, has been questioned by some modern historical and textual critics, who believe that “Syria” (Hebrew Aram) is here a corruption for “Edom.” There is no other evidence—save the corrupt passage, 2 Sam. xxiv. 6, where “Tahtim-hodshi” is explained as meaning “the land of the Hittites to Kadesh”—that David’s kingdom was so far extended northward. However this may be, it is evident that the Israelite possession of Syria did not last long. A subordinate of Hadadezer named Rezon (Rasun) succeeded in establishing himself in Damascus and in founding there a royal dynasty. Throughout the reign of Solomon (1 Kings xi. 23, 24) this Rezon seems to have been a constant enemy to the kingdom of Israel.

David, however, after becoming king, launched an attack against Damascus as revenge for the support the city had given his enemy Hadadezer, the king of Zobah. The campaign was successful; David defeated 22,000 Syrians and took control of the city, establishing a garrison there. “And the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts” (2 Sam. viii. 5, 6; 1 Chron. xviii. 5). It should be noted that this claim has been questioned by some modern historians and textual critics, who argue that “Syria” (Hebrew Aram) is likely a mistake for “Edom.” There is no other evidence—other than the questionable passage in 2 Sam. xxiv. 6, where “Tahtim-hodshi” is interpreted as meaning “the land of the Hittites to Kadesh”—to suggest that David’s kingdom extended this far north. Regardless, it’s clear that Israel’s control over Syria did not last long. Hadadezer's subordinate, named Rezon (Rasun), managed to take over Damascus and establish a royal dynasty there. Throughout Solomon’s reign (1 Kings xi. 23, 24), Rezon appears to have been a consistent enemy of the kingdom of Israel.

It is inferred from 1 Kings xv. 19 that Abijah, son of Rehoboam, king of Judah, made a league with Tab-Rimmon of Damascus to assist him in his wars against Israel, and that afterwards Tab-Rimmon’s son Ben-Hadad came to terms with the second successor of Jeroboam, Baasha. Asa, son of Abijah, followed his father’s policy, and bought the aid of Syria, whereby he was enabled to destroy the border fort that Baasha had erected (1 Kings xv. 22).

It can be gathered from 1 Kings 15:19 that Abijah, the son of Rehoboam, king of Judah, formed an alliance with Tab-Rimmon of Damascus to help him in his wars against Israel, and later, Tab-Rimmon's son Ben-Hadad made an agreement with Baasha, the second successor of Jeroboam. Asa, the son of Abijah, continued his father’s strategy and sought help from Syria, which allowed him to destroy the border fort that Baasha had built (1 Kings 15:22).

Hostilities between Israel and Syria lasted to the days of Ahab. From Omri the king of Syria took cities and the right to establish a quarter for his merchants in Samaria (1 Kings xx. 34). His son Ben-Hadad made an unsuccessful attack on Israel at Aphek, and was allowed by Ahab to depart on a reversal of these terms (loc. cit.). This was the cause of a prophetic denunciation (1 Kings xx. 42). According to the Assyrian records Ahab fought as Ben-Hadad’s ally at the battle of Karkar against Shalmaneser in 854. This seems to indicate an intermediate defeat and vassalage of Ahab, of which no direct record remains; and it was probably in the attempt to throw off this vassalage in 853, the year after the battle of Karkar, that Ahab met his death in battle with the Syrians (1 Kings xxii. 34-40). In the reign of Jehoram, Naaman, the Syrian general, came and was cleansed by the prophet Elisha of leprosy (2 Kings v.).

Hostilities between Israel and Syria continued during the reign of Ahab. From Omri, the king of Syria seized cities and gained the right to set up a trading area for his merchants in Samaria (1 Kings xx. 34). His son, Ben-Hadad, launched an unsuccessful attack on Israel at Aphek and was allowed by Ahab to leave after reversing the terms (loc. cit.). This led to a prophetic condemnation (1 Kings xx. 42). According to Assyrian records, Ahab fought alongside Ben-Hadad at the battle of Karkar against Shalmaneser in 854. This suggests that Ahab may have faced an intermediate defeat and became a vassal, though no direct record remains of that. It was likely in an attempt to break free from this vassalage in 853, the year after the battle of Karkar, that Ahab died in battle against the Syrians (1 Kings xxii. 34-40). During Jehoram's reign, Naaman, the Syrian general, came to Elisha the prophet and was healed of leprosy (2 Kings v.).

In 843 Hazael assassinated Ben-Hadad and made himself king of Damascus. The states which Ben-Hadad had brought together into a coalition against the advancing power of Assyria all revolted; and Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, took advantage of this in 842 and attacked Syria. He wasted the country, but could not take the capital. Jehu, king of Israel, paid tribute to Assyria, for which Hazael afterwards revenged himself, during the time when Shalmaneser was distracted by his Armenian wars, by attacking the borders of Israel (2 Kings x. 32).

In 843, Hazael killed Ben-Hadad and became the king of Damascus. The states that Ben-Hadad had united against the growing power of Assyria all rebelled, and Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, took advantage of this in 842 by launching an attack on Syria. He devastated the region but couldn’t capture the capital. Jehu, the king of Israel, paid tribute to Assyria, which led to Hazael seeking revenge later on, while Shalmaneser was occupied with his wars in Armenia, by attacking the borders of Israel (2 Kings x. 32).

Adad-nirari IV. invaded Syria and besieged Damascus in 806. Taking advantage of this and similar succeeding events, Jehoash, king of Israel, recovered the cities that his father had lost to Hazael.

Adad-nirari IV invaded Syria and laid siege to Damascus in 806. Taking advantage of this and similar events that followed, Jehoash, king of Israel, regained the cities that his father had lost to Hazael.

In 734 Ahaz became king of Judah, and Rezon (Raṣun, Rezin), the king of Damascus at the time, came up against him; at the same time the Edomites and the Philistines revolted. Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-Pileser III., king of Assyria, sent him gifts, and besought his protection. Tiglath-Pileser invaded Syria, and in 732 succeeded in reducing Damascus (see also Babylonia and Assyria, Chronology, § 5, and Jews, §§ 10 sqq.).

In 734, Ahaz became the king of Judah, and Rezon, the king of Damascus at that time, came to fight against him. At the same time, the Edomites and the Philistines revolted. Ahaz reached out to Tiglath-Pileser III, the king of Assyria, sent him gifts, and asked for his protection. Tiglath-Pileser invaded Syria and, in 732, managed to capture Damascus (see also Babylonia and Assyria, Chronology, § 5, and Jews, §§ 10 sqq.).

Except for the abortive rising under Sargon in 720, we hear nothing more of Damascus for a long period. In 333 B.C., after the battle of Issus, it was delivered over by treachery to Parmenio, the general of Alexander the Great; the harem and treasures of Darius had here been lodged. It had a chequered history during the wars of the successors of Alexander, being occasionally in Egyptian hands. In 112 B.C. the empire of Syria was divided by Antiochus Grypus and Antiochus Cyzicenus; the city of Damascus fell to the share of the latter. Hyrcanus took advantage of the disputes of these rulers to advance his own kingdom. Demetrius Eucaerus, successor of Cyzicenus, invaded Palestine in 88 B.C., and defeated Alexander Jannaeus at Shechem. On his dethronement and captivity by the Parthians, Antiochus Dionysus, his brother, succeeded him, but was slain in battle by Hāritha (Aretas) the Arab—the first instance of Arab interference with Damascene politics. Hāritha yielded to Tigranes, king of Armenia, who in his turn was driven out by Q. Caecilius Metellus (son of Scipio Nasica), the Roman general. In 63 Syria was made a Roman province.

Except for the failed uprising led by Sargon in 720, we don’t hear anything about Damascus for a long time. In 333 B.C., after the battle of Issus, it was handed over through treachery to Parmenio, Alexander the Great's general; the harem and treasures of Darius had been stored there. Damascus had a tumultuous history during the wars of Alexander's successors, sometimes falling into Egyptian hands. In 112 B.C., Antiochus Grypus and Antiochus Cyzicenus divided the Syrian empire; the city went to the latter. Hyrcanus took advantage of the conflicts between these rulers to expand his own kingdom. Demetrius Eucaerus, the successor of Cyzicenus, invaded Palestine in 88 B.C. and defeated Alexander Jannaeus at Shechem. After Antiochus Dionysus, his brother, was dethroned and captured by the Parthians, he succeeded him but was killed in battle by Hāritha (Aretas) the Arab—the first instance of Arab involvement in Damascene politics. Hāritha then submitted to Tigranes, king of Armenia, who was later driven out by Q. Caecilius Metellus (son of Scipio Nasica), the Roman general. In 63, Syria became a Roman province.

In the New Testament Damascus appears only in connexion with the miraculous conversion of St Paul (Acts ix., xxii., xxvi.), his escape from Aretas the governor by being lowered in a basket over the wall (Acts ix. 25; 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33), and his return thither after his retirement in Arabia (Gal. i. 17).

In the New Testament, Damascus is mentioned only in relation to the miraculous conversion of St. Paul (Acts 9, 22, 26), his escape from Aretas the governor by being lowered in a basket over the wall (Acts 9:25; 2 Cor. 11:32, 33), and his return there after his time in Arabia (Gal. 1:17).

In 150, under Trajan, Damascus became a Roman provincial city.

In 150, under Trajan, Damascus became a Roman provincial city.

On the establishment of Christianity Damascus became the seat of a bishop who ranked next to the patriarch of Antioch. The great temple of Damascus was turned by Arcadius into a Christian church.

On the establishment of Christianity, Damascus became the seat of a bishop who ranked just below the patriarch of Antioch. The great temple of Damascus was converted by Arcadius into a Christian church.

In 635 Damascus was captured for Islam by Khālid ibn Walīd, the great general of the new religion, being the first city to yield after the battle of the Yarmuk (Hieromax). After the murder of Ali, the fourth caliph, his successor Moawiya transferred the seat of the Caliphate (q.v.) from Mecca to Damascus and thus commenced the great dynasty of the Omayyads, whose rule extended from the Atlantic to India. This dynasty lasted about ninety years; it was supplanted by that of the Abbasids, who removed the seat of empire to Mesopotamia; and Damascus 785 passed through a period of unrest in which it was captured and ravaged by Egyptians, Carmathians and Seljuks in turn. The crusaders attacked Damascus in 1126, but never succeeded in keeping a firm hold of it, even during their brief domination of the country. It was the headquarters of Saladin in the wars with the Franks. Of its later history we need only mention the Mongolian capture in 1260; its Egyptian recapture by the Mameluke Kotuz; the ferocious raid of Timur (Tamerlane) in 1399; and the conquest by the Turkish sultan Selim, whereby it became a city of the Ottoman empire (1516). In its more recent history the only incidents that need be mentioned are its capture by Ibrahim Pasha, the Egyptian general, in 1832, when the city was first opened to the representatives of foreign powers; its revolt against Ibrahim’s tyranny in 1834, which he crushed with the aid of the Druses; the return of the city to Turkish domination, when the Egyptians were driven out of Syria in 1840 by the allied powers; and the massacre of July 1860, when the Moslem population rose against the Christians, burnt their quarter, and slaughtered about 3000 adult males.

In 635, Damascus was captured for Islam by Khālid ibn Walīd, the great general of the new religion, making it the first city to surrender after the battle of the Yarmuk (Hieromax). After the assassination of Ali, the fourth caliph, his successor Moawiya moved the Caliphate's capital from Mecca to Damascus, marking the start of the Omayyad dynasty, which ruled from the Atlantic to India. This dynasty lasted around ninety years before being replaced by the Abbasids, who shifted the center of the empire to Mesopotamia. Damascus went through a turbulent time, being captured and ravaged in turn by Egyptians, Carmathians, and Seljuks. The crusaders attacked Damascus in 1126 but were never able to maintain a strong grip on it, even during their short rule over the region. It served as Saladin's headquarters in his battles against the Franks. In later history, we should note the Mongolian capture in 1260, its recapture by the Egyptian Mameluke Kotuz, the brutal raid by Timur (Tamerlane) in 1399, and the conquest by the Turkish sultan Selim, which made it part of the Ottoman Empire in 1516. In more recent history, key events include its capture by Ibrahim Pasha, the Egyptian general, in 1832, when the city was first opened to foreign representatives; its revolt against Ibrahim’s tyranny in 1834, which he crushed with the help of the Druses; the return of the city to Turkish control after the Egyptians were expelled from Syria in 1840 by the allied powers; and the massacre in July 1860, when the Muslim population rose against the Christians, burned their quarter, and killed about 3000 adult males.

Modern City.—Damascus is a city with a population estimated at from 154,000 (35,000 Christians and Jews) to 225,000 (55,000 Christians and Jews), situated near the northern edge of a plain called the Ghutah, at the foot of Anti-Lebanon, 2250 ft. above the sea. The river Barada (the Abanah of 2 Kings v. 12) rises in the Anti-Lebanon, runs for about 10 m. in a narrow channel, and then spreads itself fan-wise over the plain. About 18 m. east of the city it loses itself in the marshlands known as the Meadow Lakes. A second river, the ’Awaj (possibly the Pharpar of 2 Kings), pursues a similar course. The plain is thus exceptionally well irrigated, and its consequent fertility is proverbial over the East. Damascus is situated on both banks of the Barada, about 2 m. from the exit of the river from the gorge. On the right bank is all the older part of the city, and a long suburb called El-Meidān extending about a mile along the Hajj Road. On the left bank are the suburbs El ‘Amāara and El-Salihia. The waters of the river are carried by channels and conduits to all the houses of the city. The orchards, gardens, vineyards and fields of Damascus are said to extend over a circuit of at least 60 m. In the surrounding plain are one hundred and forty villages, occupied in all by about 50,000 persons (1000 Christians, 2000 Druses).

Modern City.—Damascus is a city with a population estimated between 154,000 (35,000 Christians and Jews) and 225,000 (55,000 Christians and Jews), located near the northern edge of a plain known as the Ghutah, at the foot of Anti-Lebanon, 2,250 ft. above sea level. The Barada River (the Abanah of 2 Kings v. 12) originates in the Anti-Lebanon, flows for about 10 miles in a narrow channel, and then spreads out over the plain like a fan. About 18 miles east of the city, it eventually sinks into the marshlands known as the Meadow Lakes. A second river, the ’Awaj (possibly the Pharpar of 2 Kings), follows a similar path. This plain is exceptionally well-irrigated, and its resulting fertility is famous throughout the East. Damascus is located on both sides of the Barada, about 2 miles from where the river exits the gorge. The older part of the city is on the right bank, along with a long suburb called El-Meidān that stretches about a mile along the Hajj Road. On the left bank are the suburbs El ‘Amāara and El-Salihia. The river's waters are channeled and conducted to all the homes in the city. The orchards, gardens, vineyards, and fields of Damascus are said to extend over an area of at least 60 miles. In the surrounding plain, there are one hundred and forty villages, home to about 50,000 people (1,000 Christians, 2,000 Druses).

The rough mud walls in the private houses give poor promise of splendour within. The entrance is usually by a low door, and through a narrow winding passage which leads to the outer court, where the master has his reception room. From this another winding passage leads to the harem, which is the principal part of the house. The plan of all is the same—an open court, with a tesselated pavement, and one or two marble fountains; orange and lemon trees, flowering shrubs, and climbing plants give freshness and fragrance. All the apartments open into the court; and on the south side is an open alcove, with a marble floor, and raised dais round three sides, covered with cushions; the front wall is supported by an ornamented Saracenic arch. The decoration of some of the rooms is gorgeous, the walls being covered in part with mosaics and in part with carved work, while the ceilings are rich in arabesque ornaments, elaborately gilt. A few of the modern Jewish houses have been embellished at an enormous cost, but they are wanting in taste.

The rough mud walls of the private houses don’t promise much beauty inside. The entrance is usually through a low door and a narrow winding passage that leads to the outer courtyard, where the master has his reception room. From there, another winding passage leads to the harem, which is the main part of the house. The layout is consistent—an open courtyard with a tiled floor and one or two marble fountains; orange and lemon trees, flowering shrubs, and climbing plants add freshness and fragrance. All the rooms open into the courtyard; on the south side is an open alcove with a marble floor and raised seating around three sides, covered with cushions; the front wall is supported by an ornate Saracenic arch. Some of the rooms are beautifully decorated, with walls partially covered in mosaics and carved work, while the ceilings are rich in intricate gold arabesque designs. A few of the modern Jewish houses have been lavishly decorated, but they lack taste.

Antiquities.—Considering the great age of Damascus, its comparative poverty in antiquities is remarkable. The walls of the city seem to be Seleucid in origin; some of the Roman gateways being still in good order. The Derb el-Mistakīim, or “Straight Street,” still runs through the city from the eastern to the western gate. At the north-west corner is a large castle built in A.D. 1219, by El-Malik el-Ashraf, on the site of an earlier palace. It is quadrangular, surrounded by a moat filled by the Barada. The outer walls are in good preservation, but the interior is ruined.

Antiquities.—Given the long history of Damascus, its relatively few ancient artifacts are surprising. The city's walls seem to be of Seleucid origin, and some of the Roman gateways are still in good condition. The Derb el-Mistakīim, or “Straight Street,” still runs through the city from the eastern to the western gate. In the north-west corner is a large castle built in A.D. 1219 by El-Malik el-Ashraf, on the site of an earlier palace. It is square-shaped and surrounded by a moat filled by the Barada River. The outer walls are well-preserved, but the interior is in ruins.

The church of St John the Baptist constructed by Arcadius on the site of the temple was turned by Caliph Walid I. (705-717) to a mosque which was the most important building of Damascus. It was a structure 431 ft. by 125 ft. interior dimensions, extending along the south side of a quadrangle 163 yds. by 108 yds. Except the famous inscription over the door—“Thy kingdom, O Christ, is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations”—every trace of Christianity was effaced from the church at its conversion. It was destroyed by fire on the 14th of October 1893, and though it was subsequently rebuilt, much that was of archaeological and historical interest perished. It is estimated that there are over two hundred mosques in Damascus.

The church of St. John the Baptist, built by Arcadius on the site of the temple, was converted into a mosque by Caliph Walid I (705-717), which became the most significant building in Damascus. It measured 431 ft. by 125 ft. in interior dimensions and stretched along the south side of a courtyard that was 163 yds. by 108 yds. Aside from the famous inscription over the door—“Thy kingdom, O Christ, is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations”—all traces of Christianity were removed from the church after it was converted. It was destroyed by fire on October 14, 1893, and although it was later rebuilt, many elements of archaeological and historical significance were lost. It’s estimated that there are over two hundred mosques in Damascus.

Products, Manufactures, &c.—Damascus occupies an important commercial position, being the market for the whole of the desert; it also is of great importance religiously, as being the starting-point for the Hajj pilgrimage from Syria to Mecca, which leaves on the 15th of the lunar month of Shawwal each year. This of course brings much trade to the city. Its chief manufactures are silk work, cloths and cloaks, gold and silver ornaments, &c., brass and copper work, furniture and ornamental woodwork. The bazaars of Damascus are among the most famous of their kind. It is connected with Beirut and Mezerib by railway, and at the end of the past century the great undertaking of running a line to Mecca was commenced. In the surrounding gardens and fields walnuts, apricots, wheat, barley, maize, &c. are grown. Its commercial importance is referred to by Ezekiel (xxvii. 18), who mentions its trade in wines and wool. The climate is good; in winter there is often hard frost and much snow, and even in summer, with a day temperature of 100° F., the nights are always cool. Fever, dysentery and ophthalmia, chiefly due to exposure to heavy dews and cold nights, are prevalent. Though still the market of the nomads, the surer and cheaper sea route has almost destroyed the transit trade to which it once owed its wealth, and has even diminished the importance of the annual pilgrim caravan to Mecca. The Damascene, however, still retains his skill as a craftsman and tiller of the soil. The chief imports are cloths, prints, muslins, raw silk, sugar, rice, &c.

Products, Manufacturers, etc.—Damascus holds a significant commercial role, serving as the market for the entire desert region. It is also of great religious importance, as it is the starting point for the Hajj pilgrimage from Syria to Mecca, which takes place on the 15th of the lunar month of Shawwal each year. This naturally brings a lot of trade to the city. Its main products are silk goods, fabrics and cloaks, gold and silver jewelry, brass and copper items, as well as furniture and decorative woodwork. The bazaars of Damascus are among the most renowned of their kind. It is connected to Beirut and Mezerib by railway, and towards the end of the last century, the ambitious project to build a railway line to Mecca was initiated. In the nearby gardens and fields, walnuts, apricots, wheat, barley, maize, and more are cultivated. Its commercial significance is mentioned by Ezekiel (xxvii. 18), who refers to its trade in wines and wool. The climate is pleasant; during winter, there can be severe frosts and heavy snowfall, and even in summer, with daytime temperatures reaching 100°F, the nights are always cool. Illnesses like fever, dysentery, and ophthalmia, largely due to exposure to heavy dews and cold nights, are common. Although it is still the market for nomads, the more reliable and cheaper sea route has largely diminished the transit trade that once brought wealth to the city and has even reduced the significance of the annual pilgrim caravan to Mecca. Nonetheless, the people of Damascus continue to be skilled craftsmen and farmers. The main imports include fabrics, prints, muslins, raw silk, sugar, rice, and more.

The value of exports and imports in certain specified years is shown in the following table:—

The value of exports and imports in specific years is shown in the following table:—

  1890. 1894. 1898. 1905.
Exports £325,660 £400,830 £302,050 £386,000
Imports 525,710 614,490 675,080 872,400

Most of the Christians belong to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic (United) Greek Churches; and there are also communities of Melchites, Jacobites, Maronites, Nestorians, Armenians and Protestants. There are Protestant missions, founded 1843, and a British hospital.

Most Christians belong to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic (United) Greek Churches; there are also communities of Melchites, Jacobites, Maronites, Nestorians, Armenians, and Protestants. There are Protestant missions established in 1843 and a British hospital.

Authorities.—Lortet, La Syrie d’aujourd’hui, p. 567 f. (Paris, 1884); Von Oppenheim, Vom Mittelmeer zum Persischen Golf, i. 49 f. (Berlin, 1899); G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land; Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. “Damascus”; Consular Reports; Baedeker-Socin, Handbook to Syria and Palestine. For the Great Mosque see Dickie, Phené Spiers, and Sir C. W. Wilson in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, Oct. 1897.

Authorities.—Lortet, La Syrie d’aujourd’hui, p. 567 f. (Paris, 1884); Von Oppenheim, Vom Mittelmeer zum Persischen Golf, i. 49 f. (Berlin, 1899); G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land; Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. “Damascus”; Consular Reports; Baedeker-Socin, Handbook to Syria and Palestine. For the Great Mosque see Dickie, Phené Spiers, and Sir C. W. Wilson in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, Oct. 1897.

(R. A. S. M.)

DAMASK, the technical term applied to certain distinct types of fabric. The term owes its origin to the ornamental silk fabrics of Damascus, fabrics which were elaborately woven in colours, sometimes with the addition of gold and other metallic threads. At the present day it denotes a linen texture richly figured in the weaving with flowers, fruit, forms of animal life, and other types of ornament. “China, no doubt,” says Dr Rock (Catalogue of Textile Fabrics, Victoria and Albert Museum), “was the first country to ornament its silken webs with a pattern. India, Persia, and Syria, then Byzantine Greece followed, but at long intervals between, in China’s footsteps. Stuffs so figured brought with them to the West the name ‘diaspron’ or diaper, bestowed upon them at Constantinople. But about the 12th century the city of Damascus, even then long celebrated for its looms, so far outstripped all other places for beauty of design, that her silken textiles were in demand everywhere; and thus, as often happens, traders fastened the name of damascen or damask upon every silken fabric richly wrought and curiously designed, no matter whether it came or not from Damascus.” The term is perhaps now best known in reference to damask table-cloths, a 786 species of figured cloth usually of flax or tow yarns, but sometimes made partly of cotton. The finer qualities are made of the best linen yarn, and, although the latter is of a brownish colour during the weaving processes, the ultimate fabric is pure white. The high lights in these cloths are obtained by long floats of warp and weft, and, as these are set at right angles, they reflect the light differently according to the angle of the rays of light; the effect changes also with the position of the observer. Subdued effects are produced by shorter floats of yarn, and sometimes by special weaves. Any subject, however intricate, can be copied by this method of weaving, provided that expense is no object. The finest results are obtained when the so-called double damask weaves are used. These weaves are shown under Die, and it will be seen that each weave gives a maximum float of seven threads. (In some special cases a weave is used which gives a float of nine.) The small figure here shown to illustrate a small section of a damask design is composed of the two single damask weaves; these give a maximum float of four threads or picks. No shading is shown in the design, and this for two reasons—(1) the single damask weaves do not permit of elaborate shading, although some very good effects are obtainable; (2) the available space is not sufficiently large to show the method to advantage. The different single damask weaves used in the shading of these cloths appear, however, at the bottom of the figure, while between these and the design proper there is an illustration of the thirty-first pick interweaving with all the forty-eight threads.

DAMASK, is the technical term for specific types of fabric. It originates from the decorative silk fabrics of Damascus, which were intricately woven in various colors, sometimes incorporating gold and other metallic threads. Today, it refers to a linen texture that features rich designs in the weave, including flowers, fruits, animals, and other decorative elements. “China, without a doubt,” notes Dr. Rock (Catalogue of Textile Fabrics, Victoria and Albert Museum), “was the first country to embellish its silk with patterns. Following China, India, Persia, and Syria, and later Byzantine Greece, took their turn, but with significant gaps in time. These patterned fabrics were known in the West as ‘diaspron’ or diaper, a name given to them in Constantinople. However, by the 12th century, Damascus, already famous for its weaving, surpassed all other regions in design beauty, making its silk textiles highly sought after. Traders then attached the name damascen or damask to any richly decorated silk fabric, regardless of its origin.” The term is most commonly associated with damask tablecloths, a type of figured cloth generally made from flax or tow yarns, although sometimes partially made from cotton. The finer versions are crafted from the best linen yarn, which, while appearing brown during weaving, ultimately becomes pure white. The highlights in these cloths are created by long floats of warp and weft, reflecting light differently depending on the angle of the light rays; the effect also shifts with the observer’s position. Subdued effects result from shorter floats of yarn or special weaves. Any design, no matter how complex, can be replicated using this weaving technique, provided cost is not an issue. The best results come from using double damask weaves. These weaves are illustrated under Die, showing that each weave has a maximum float of seven threads. (In some cases, a weave allows for a nine-thread float.) The small figure depicted here shows a tiny portion of a damask design, made of two single damask weaves that allow a maximum float of four threads or picks. There is no shading in the design for two reasons—(1) the single damask weaves do not allow for elaborate shading, though some pleasing effects can be achieved; (2) the available space isn't large enough to show the method effectively. Nonetheless, the different single damask weaves used in the shading of these cloths can be found at the bottom of the figure, along with an illustration of the thirty-first pick interweaving with all forty-eight threads.

The principal British centres for fine damasks are Belfast and Dunfermline, while the medium qualities are made in several places in Ireland, in a few places in England, and in the counties of Fife, Forfar and Perth in Scotland. Cotton damasks, which are made in Paisley, Glasgow, and several places in Lancashire, are used for toilet covers, table-cloths, and similar purposes. They are often ornamented with colours and sent to the Indian and West Indian markets. Silk damasks for curtains and upholstery decoration are made in the silk-weaving centres.

The main British centers for fine damasks are Belfast and Dunfermline, while medium-quality damasks are produced in various locations in Ireland, a few in England, and in the counties of Fife, Forfar, and Perth in Scotland. Cotton damasks, made in Paisley, Glasgow, and several spots in Lancashire, are used for toilet covers, tablecloths, and similar items. They are often decorated with colors and exported to the Indian and West Indian markets. Silk damasks for curtains and upholstery are made in the silk-weaving centers.


DAMASK STEEL, or Damascus Steel, a steel with a peculiar watered or streaked appearance, as seen in the blades of fine swords and other weapons of Oriental manufacture. One way of producing this appearance is to twist together strips of iron and steel of different quality and then weld them into a solid mass. A similar but inferior result may be obtained by etching with acid the surface of a metal; parts of which are protected by some greasy substance in such a way as to give the watered pattern desired. The art of producing damask steel has been generally practised in Oriental countries from a remote period, the most famous blades having come from Isfahan, Khorasan, and Shiraz in Persia.

DAMASK STEEL, or Damascus steel, is a type of steel known for its unique watered or streaked look, commonly seen in high-quality swords and other weapons made in the East. One method to achieve this look is by twisting together strips of iron and steel of different grades and then welding them into a solid piece. An inferior method can produce a similar effect by using acid to etch the surface of the metal, with certain areas protected by a greasy substance to create the desired pattern. The craft of making damask steel has been practiced in Eastern countries for a long time, with the most renowned blades originating from Isfahan, Khorasan, and Shiraz in Persia.


DAMASUS, the name of two popes.

DAMASUS, the name of two popes.

Damasus I. was pope from 366 to 384. At the time of the banishment of Pope Liberius (355), the deacon Damasus, like all the Roman clergy, made energetic protest. When, however, the emperor Constantius sent to Rome an anti-pope in the person of Felix II., Damasus, with the other clergy, rallied to his cause. When Liberius returned from exile and Felix was expelled from Rome, Damasus again took his place among the adherents of Liberius. On the death of Liberius (366) a considerable party nominated Damasus successor; but the irreconcilables of the party of Liberius refused to pardon his trimming, and set up against him another deacon, Ursinus. A serious conflict ensued between the rival factions, which quickly led to rioting and hand-to-hand fighting. In one of these encounters the then new basilica, called the Liberian Basilica (S. Maria Maggiore), was partially destroyed, and 137 dead bodies were left in the building. On several occasions the secular arm had to intervene, although the government of the emperor Valentinian was averse from involving itself in ecclesiastical affairs. From the outset the prefect of Rome recognized the claims of Damasus, and exerted himself to support him. Ursinus and the leading men of his faction were expelled from Rome, and afterwards from central Italy, or even interned in Gaul. They, however, persisted obstinately in their opposition to Damasus, combating him at first by riots, and then by calumnious law-suits, such as that instituted by one Isaac, a converted and relapsed Jew.

Damasus I. was pope from 366 to 384. When Pope Liberius was banished in 355, the deacon Damasus, like all the Roman clergy, protested strongly. However, when the emperor Constantius sent an anti-pope, Felix II., to Rome, Damasus and the other clergy supported Felix. When Liberius returned from exile and Felix was removed from Rome, Damasus joined the supporters of Liberius again. After Liberius died in 366, a significant group nominated Damasus as his successor, but the hardliners from Liberius’s faction refused to forgive Damasus for his previous shift and appointed another deacon, Ursinus, against him. This led to a serious conflict between the two groups, resulting in riots and violent clashes. During one of these confrontations, the then-new basilica, known as the Liberian Basilica (S. Maria Maggiore), was partially destroyed, and 137 bodies were found inside. On several occasions, the secular authorities had to intervene, despite the government under Emperor Valentinian being reluctant to get involved in church matters. From the beginning, the prefect of Rome acknowledged Damasus's claim and worked to support him. Ursinus and the leaders of his faction were expelled from Rome and later from central Italy, or even exiled to Gaul. However, they stubbornly continued to oppose Damasus, initially through riots and later through false lawsuits, such as one filed by a man named Isaac, a converted and then-reverted Jew.

To the official support, which never failed him, Damasus endeavoured to join the popular sympathy. From before his election he had been in high favour with the Roman aristocracy, and especially with the great ladies. At that period the urban masses, but recently converted to Christianity, sought in the worship of the martyrs a sort of substitute for polytheism. Damasus showed great zeal in discovering the tombs of martyrs, adorning them with precious marbles and monumental inscriptions. The inscriptions he composed himself, in mediocre verse, full of Virgilian reminiscences. Several have come down to us on the original marbles, entire or in fragments; others are known from old copies. In the interior of Rome he erected or embellished the church which still bears his name (S. Lorenzo in Damaso), near which his father’s house appears to have stood.

To the official support that never let him down, Damasus tried to gain the sympathy of the people. Before he was elected, he was already well-liked by the Roman aristocracy, especially the prominent women. At that time, the urban population, who had only recently converted to Christianity, looked to the worship of martyrs as a kind of replacement for polytheism. Damasus showed great enthusiasm for finding the tombs of martyrs, decorating them with fine marble and commemorative inscriptions. He wrote the inscriptions himself, in average verse, filled with references to Virgil. Several of these have survived on the original marbles, intact or as fragments; others are known from old copies. In the heart of Rome, he built or enhanced the church that still carries his name (S. Lorenzo in Damaso), near where his father's house is believed to have been located.

The West was recovering gradually from the troubles caused by the Arian crisis. Damasus took part, more or less effectually, in the efforts to eliminate from Italy and Illyria the last champions of the council of Rimini. In spite of his declaration at the council convened by him in 372, he did not succeed in evicting Auxentius from Milan. But Auxentius died soon afterwards, and his successor, Ambrose, undertook to bring these hitherto abortive efforts to a successful conclusion, and to complete the return of Illyria to the confessions of Nicaea. The bishops of the East, however, under the direction of St Basil, were involved in a struggle with the emperor Valens, whose policy was favourable to the council of Rimini. Damasus, to whom they appealed for help, was unable to be of much service to them, the more so because that episcopal group, viewed askance by St Athanasius and his successor Peter, was incessantly combated at the papal court by the inveterate hatred of Alexandria. The Eastern bishops triumphed in the end under Theodosius, at the council of Constantinople (381), in which the pope and the Western church took no part. They were invited to a council of wider convocation, held at Rome in 382, but very few attended.

The West was slowly recovering from the issues caused by the Arian crisis. Damasus was involved, to varying degrees of effectiveness, in efforts to remove the last supporters of the Council of Rimini from Italy and Illyria. Despite his statement at the council he called in 372, he couldn’t succeed in getting rid of Auxentius in Milan. However, Auxentius died soon after, and his successor, Ambrose, took on the task of finally making these previously unsuccessful efforts work and completing the return of Illyria to the Nicene faith. Meanwhile, the bishops of the East, led by St. Basil, were in conflict with Emperor Valens, whose policies supported the Council of Rimini. Damasus, whom they appealed to for help, wasn’t able to provide much assistance, especially since that group of bishops was viewed with suspicion by St. Athanasius and his successor, Peter, and faced constant opposition from the entrenched animosity of Alexandria at the papal court. Ultimately, the Eastern bishops succeeded under Theodosius at the Council of Constantinople (381), which the pope and the Western church did not attend. They were later invited to a broader council held in Rome in 382, but very few showed up.

This council had brought to Rome the learned monk Jerome, for whom Damasus showed great esteem. To him Damasus entrusted the revision of the Latin text of the Bible and other works of religious erudition. A short time before, the pope had received a visit from the Priscillianists after their condemnation in Spain, and had dismissed them. Damasus died in 384, on the 11th of December, the day on which his memory is still celebrated.

This council had brought the scholar monk Jerome to Rome, whom Damasus highly respected. Damasus assigned him the task of revising the Latin text of the Bible and other religious writings. Shortly before, the pope had met with the Priscillianists after they were condemned in Spain and had sent them away. Damasus died in 384, on December 11th, the day that is still commemorated in his memory.

Damasus II., pope from the 17th of July to the 9th of August 1048, was the ephemeral successor of Clement II. His original name was Poppo, and he was bishop of Brixen when the emperor Henry III. raised him to the papacy.

Damasus II., pope from July 17 to August 9, 1048, was the brief successor of Clement II. His original name was Poppo, and he was the bishop of Brixen when Emperor Henry III appointed him to the papacy.

(L. D.*)

DAMAUN or Daman, a town of Portuguese India, capital of the settlement of Damaun, situated on the east side of the entrance of the Gulf of Cambay within the Bombay Presidency. The area of the settlement is 82 sq. m. Pop. (1900) 41,671. The settlement is divided into two parts, Damaun proper, and the larger pargana of Nagar Havili, the two being separated by a narrow strip of British territory. The soil is fertile, and rice, wheat and tobacco are the chief crops. The teak forests are valuable. Weaving is an industry less important than formerly; mats and baskets are manufactured, and deep-sea fishing is an 787 important industry. The shipbuilding business at the town of Damaun is important. Early in the 19th century a large transit trade in opium between Karachi and China was carried on at Damaun, but it ceased in 1837, when the British prohibited it after their conquest of Sind. The settlement is administered as a unit, and has a municipal chamber.

Damaun or Daman is a town in Portuguese India, serving as the capital of the Damaun settlement, located on the east side of the entrance to the Gulf of Cambay within the Bombay Presidency. The area of the settlement covers 82 square miles, with a population of 41,671 in 1900. The settlement is divided into two parts: Damaun itself and the larger pargana of Nagar Havili, which are separated by a narrow strip of British territory. The soil here is fertile, with rice, wheat, and tobacco being the main crops. The teak forests are valuable resources. Weaving is less important than it used to be; however, mats and baskets are still produced, and deep-sea fishing is a key industry. The shipbuilding sector in the town of Damaun is significant. In the early 19th century, a large transit trade in opium between Karachi and China was active in Damaun, but it stopped in 1837 when the British banned it after their conquest of Sind. The settlement is managed as a single unit and has a municipal chamber.

Damaun town was sacked and burnt by the Portuguese in 1531. It was subsequently rebuilt, and in 1558 was again taken by the Portuguese, who made a permanent settlement and converted the mosque into a Christian church. From that time it has remained in their hands. The territory of Damaun proper was conquered by the Portuguese in 1559; that of Nagar Havili was ceded to them by the Mahrattas in 1780 in indemnification for piracy.

Damaun town was looted and set on fire by the Portuguese in 1531. It was rebuilt, and in 1558, the Portuguese took it again, establishing a permanent settlement and converting the mosque into a Christian church. Since then, it has stayed under their control. The area of Damaun itself was conquered by the Portuguese in 1559, while Nagar Havili was handed over to them by the Mahrattas in 1780 as compensation for piracy.


DAME (through the Fr. from Lat. domina, mistress, lady, the feminine of dominus, master, lord), properly a name of respect or a title equivalent to “lady,” now surviving in English as the legal designation of the wife or widow of a baronet or knight and prefixed to the Christian name and surname. It has also been used in modern times by certain societies or orders, e.g. the Primrose League, as the name of a certain rank among the lady members, answering to the male rank of knight. The ordinary use of the word by itself is for an old woman. As meaning “mistress,” i.e. teacher, “dame” was used of the female keepers of schools for young children, which have become obsolete since the advance of public elementary education. At Eton College boarding-houses kept by persons other than members of the teaching staff of the school were known as “Dames’ Houses,” though the head might not necessarily be a lady. As a term of address to ladies of all ranks, from the sovereign down, “madam,” shortened to “ma’am,” represents the French madame, my lady.

DAME (derived from the Fr. from Lat. domina, meaning mistress or lady, the feminine version of dominus, meaning master or lord) is essentially a respectful title equivalent to “lady.” It still exists in English as the legal title for the wife or widow of a baronet or knight, prefixed to both the first name and surname. In recent times, some societies or orders, like the Primrose League, have used it to denote a specific rank among their female members, paralleling the male rank of knight. Generally, when used alone, the word refers to an old woman. As a term meaning “mistress” or teacher, “dame” was historically used to refer to women who ran schools for young children, which have become less common due to the rise of public elementary education. At Eton College, boarding houses managed by people who were not part of the school’s teaching staff were referred to as “Dames’ Houses,” even if the head was not a woman. In terms of addressing women of all ranks, from royalty to commoners, “madam,” often shortened to “ma’am,” comes from the French madame, meaning my lady.

“Damsel,” a young girl or maiden, now only used as a literary word, is taken from the Old French dameisele, formed from dame, and parallel with the popular dansele or doncele from the medieval Latin domicella or dominicella, diminutive of domina. The French damoiselle and demoiselle are later formations. The English literary form “damosel” was another importation from France in the 15th century. In the early middle ages damoiseau, medieval Latin domicellus, dameicele, damoiselle, domicella, were used as titles of honour for the unmarried sons and daughters of royal persons and lords (seigneurs). Later the damoiseau (in the south donzel, in Béarn domengar) was specifically a young man of gentle birth who aspired to knighthood, equivalent to écuyer, esquire, or valet (q.v.). The damoiseau performed certain functions and received training in knightly accomplishments in the domestic service of his lord. Later again the name was also used of nobles who had not been knighted. In certain seigneuries in France, notably in that of Commercy, in Lorraine, damoiseau became the permanent title of the holder. In England the title, when used by the French-speaking nobility and members of the court, was only applied to the son or grandson of the king; thus in the Laws of Edward the Confessor, quoted in Du Cange (Glossarium, s.v. Domicellus), we find “Rex vero Edgarum ... pro filio nutrivit et quia cogitavit ipsum heredem facere, nominavit Ethelinge, quod nos Domicellum, id, Damisell; sed nos indiscrete de pluribus dicimus, quia Baronum filios vocamus domicellos, Angli vero nullos nisi natos regum.” Froissart calls Richard II. during the lifetime of his father the Black Prince, le jeune Demoisel. The use of damoiselle followed much the same development; it was first applied to the unmarried daughters of royal persons and seigneurs, then to the wife of a damoiseau, and also to the young ladies of gentle birth who performed for the wives of the seigneurs the same domestic services as the damoiseaus for their husbands. Hence the later form demoiselle became merely the title of address of a young unmarried lady, the mademoiselle of modern usage, the English “miss.” At the court of France, after the 17th century, Mademoiselle, without the name of the lady, was a courtesy title given to the eldest daughter of the eldest brother of the king, who was known as Monsieur. To distinguish the daughter of Gaston d’Orléans, brother of Louis XIII., from the daughter of Philippe d’Orléans, brother of Louis XIV., the former, Anne Marie Louise, duchesse de Montpensier, was called La Grande Mademoiselle, by which title she is known to history (see Montpensier, A. M. L., Duchesse de).

“Damsel,” referring to a young girl or maiden, is now mainly used in literature. It comes from the Old French dameisele, which is derived from dame, and is related to the popular dansele or doncele from medieval Latin domicella or dominicella, a diminutive of domina. The French terms damoiselle and demoiselle are later versions. The English literary form “damosel” was imported from France in the 15th century. In the early Middle Ages, damoiseau, medieval Latin domicellus, dameicele, damoiselle, and domicella were titles of honor for the unmarried sons and daughters of royals and lords (seigneurs). Later, damoiseau (in the south donzel, in Béarn domengar) specifically referred to a young man of noble birth aspiring to knighthood, similar to an écuyer, esquire, or valet (q.v.). The damoiseau had certain roles and received training in knightly skills while in the service of his lord. Eventually, the name was also used for nobles who hadn’t been knighted. In some French seigneuries, especially in Commercy, Lorraine, damoiseau became a permanent title. In England, this title was used by the French-speaking nobility and court members, only for the son or grandson of the king; thus, in the Laws of Edward the Confessor, quoted in Du Cange (Glossarium, s.v. Domicellus), we read, “Rex vero Edgarum ... pro filio nutrivit et quia cogitavit ipsum heredem facere, nominavit Ethelinge, quod nos Domicellum, id, Damisell; sed nos indiscrete de pluribus dicimus, quia Baronum filios vocamus domicellos, Angli vero nullos nisi natos regum.” Froissart referred to Richard II. during the lifetime of his father, the Black Prince, as le jeune Demoisel. The term damoiselle followed a similar path; it was first used for the unmarried daughters of royals and seigneurs, then for the wife of a damoiseau, and also for young ladies of noble birth who provided domestic service for the wives of the seigneurs, just like damoiseaus did for their husbands. Hence, the later form demoiselle became simply a title for a young unmarried lady, the mademoiselle of today, or “miss” in English. At the French court, after the 17th century, Mademoiselle, without the lady's name, became a courtesy title for the eldest daughter of the king’s eldest brother, who was known as Monsieur. To distinguish the daughter of Gaston d’Orléans, brother of Louis XIII., from the daughter of Philippe d’Orléans, brother of Louis XIV., the former, Anne Marie Louise, duchesse de Montpensier, was called La Grande Mademoiselle, by which title she is remembered in history (see Montpensier, A. M. L., Duchesse de).


DAME’S VIOLET, the English name for Hesperis matronalis, a herbaceous plant belonging to the natural order Cruciferae, and closely allied to the wallflower and stock. It has an erect stout leafy stem 2 to 3 ft. high, with irregularly toothed short-stalked leaves and white or lilac flowers, ¾ in. across, which are scented in the evening (hence the name of the genus, from the Gr. ἕσπερος, evening). The slender pods are constricted between the seeds. The plant is a native of Europe and temperate Asia, and is found in Britain as an escape from gardens, in meadows and plantations.

Dame's Violet, is the English name for Hesperis matronalis, a herbaceous plant that belongs to the natural order Cruciferae and is closely related to wallflowers and stocks. It features a strong, upright leafy stem that grows 2 to 3 feet tall, with short-stalked, irregularly toothed leaves and white or lilac flowers that are about ¾ inch across and release a pleasant scent in the evening (which is why it’s named after the Greek word for evening, evening). The slender seed pods are constricted between the seeds. This plant is native to Europe and temperate Asia and can be found in Britain as an escapee from gardens, thriving in meadows and plantations.


DAMGHAN, a town of Persia in the province of Semnan va Damghan, 216 m. from Teheran on the high-road thence to Khorasan, at an elevation of 3770 ft. and in 36° 10′ N., 54° 20′ E. Pop. about 10,000. There are post and telegraph offices, and a great export trade is done in pistachios and almonds, the latter being of the kind called Kaghazi (“of paper”) with very thin shells, famous throughout the country. Damghan was an important city in the middle ages, but only a ruined mosque with a number of massive columns and some fine wood carvings and two minarets of the 11th century remain of that period. Near the city, a few miles south and south-west, are the remains of Hecatompylos, extending from Frat, 16 m. south of Damghan, to near Gúsheh, 20 m. west. Damghan was destroyed by the Afghans in 1723. On an eminence in the western part of the city are the ruins of a large square citadel with a small white-washed building, called Molūd Khaneh (the house of birth), in which Fath Ali Shah was born (1772).

DAMGHAN, is a town in Persia, located in the province of Semnan va Damghan, 216 km from Tehran along the main road to Khorasan, at an elevation of 3,770 feet, positioned at 36° 10′ N, 54° 20′ E. The population is around 10,000. There are post and telegraph offices, and a significant export trade exists for pistachios and almonds, the latter being the Kaghazi type (“of paper”) with very thin shells, renowned throughout the country. Damghan was a key city during the Middle Ages, but now only a ruined mosque with several massive columns, fine wood carvings, and two 11th-century minarets remain from that time. A few miles south and southwest of the city lie the remains of Hecatompylos, stretching from Frat, 16 km south of Damghan, to near Gúsheh, 20 km west. Damghan was destroyed by the Afghans in 1723. On a rise in the western part of the city are the ruins of a large square citadel, featuring a small whitewashed building known as Molūd Khaneh (the house of birth), where Fath Ali Shah was born (1772).


DAMIANI, PIETRO (c. 1007-1072), one of the most celebrated ecclesiastics of the 11th century, was born at Ravenna, and after a youth spent in hardship and privation, gained some renown as a teacher. About 1035, however, he deserted his secular calling and entered the hermitage of Fonte Avellana, near Gubbio; and winning sound reputation through his piety and his preaching, he became the head of this establishment about 1043. A zealot for monastic and clerical reform, he introduced a more severe discipline, including the practice of flagellation, into the house, which, under his rule, quickly attained celebrity, and became a model for other foundations. Extending the area of his activities, he entered into communication with the emperor Henry III., addressed to Pope Leo IX. in 1049 a writing denouncing the vices of the clergy and entitled Liber Gomorrhianus; and soon became associated with Hildebrand in the work of reform. As a trusted counsellor of a succession of popes he was made cardinal bishop of Ostia, a position which he accepted with some reluctance; and presiding over a council at Milan in 1059, he courageously asserted the authority of Rome over this province, and won a signal victory for the principles which he advocated. He rendered valuable assistance to Pope Alexander II. in his struggle with the anti-pope, Honorius II.; and having served the papacy as legate to France and to Florence, he was allowed to resign his bishopric in 1067. After a period of retirement at Fonte Avellana, he proceeded in 1069 as papal legate to Germany, and persuaded the emperor Henry IV. to give up his intention of divorcing his wife Bertha. During his concluding years he was not altogether in accord with the political ideas of Hildebrand. He died at Faenza on the 22nd of February 1072. Damiani was a determined foe of simony, but his fiercest wrath was directed against the married clergy. He was an extremely vigorous controversialist, and his Latin abounds in denunciatory epithets. He was specially devoted to the Virgin Mary, and wrote an Officium Beatae Virginis, in addition to many letters, sermons, and other writings.

DAMIANI, PIETRO (c. 1007-1072), one of the most renowned religious figures of the 11th century, was born in Ravenna. After a challenging and difficult youth, he gained recognition as a teacher. Around 1035, however, he left his secular profession and joined the hermitage of Fonte Avellana, near Gubbio. Gaining a solid reputation through his devotion and preaching, he became the leader of this establishment around 1043. As a fervent advocate for monastic and clerical reform, he introduced stricter discipline, including the practice of flagellation, into the community, which under his leadership quickly became well-known and served as a model for other convents. Expanding his influence, he communicated with Emperor Henry III and, in 1049, wrote a letter to Pope Leo IX denouncing the vices of the clergy, titled Liber Gomorrhianus; he soon became involved with Hildebrand in reform efforts. As a trusted advisor to several popes, he was appointed cardinal bishop of Ostia, a role he accepted somewhat reluctantly. While presiding over a council in Milan in 1059, he boldly asserted Rome's authority over the region, achieving a significant victory for the principles he supported. He provided valuable support to Pope Alexander II in his conflict with the anti-pope, Honorius II, and after serving the papacy as legate to France and Florence, he was allowed to resign his bishopric in 1067. Following a period of retirement at Fonte Avellana, he became papal legate to Germany in 1069 and convinced Emperor Henry IV to abandon his plans to divorce his wife Bertha. In his later years, he did not completely align with Hildebrand's political views. He passed away in Faenza on February 22, 1072. Damiani was a staunch enemy of simony, but his fiercest anger was aimed at married clergy. He was a highly vigorous debater, and his Latin is filled with strong denunciatory terms. He was particularly devoted to the Virgin Mary, composing an Officium Beatae Virginis, along with numerous letters, sermons, and other writings.

His works were collected by Cardinal Cajetan, and were published in four volumes at Rome (1606-1615), and then at Paris in 1642, at Venice in 1743, and there are other editions. See A. Vogel, Peter Damiani (Jena, 1856); A. Capecelatro, Storia di S. Pier Damiani e del suo tempo (Florence, 1862); F. Neukirch, Das Leben des Peter Damiani (Göttingen, 1875); L. Guerrier, De Petro Damiano (Orleans, 1881); W. von Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit 788 (Leipzig, 1885-1890); and Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie, Band iv. (Leipzig, 1898).

His works were collected by Cardinal Cajetan and published in four volumes in Rome (1606-1615), then in Paris in 1642, and in Venice in 1743, along with other editions. See A. Vogel, Peter Damiani (Jena, 1856); A. Capecelatro, Storia di S. Pier Damiani e del suo tempo (Florence, 1862); F. Neukirch, Das Leben des Peter Damiani (Göttingen, 1875); L. Guerrier, De Petro Damiano (Orleans, 1881); W. von Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit 788 (Leipzig, 1885-1890); and Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie, Band iv. (Leipzig, 1898).


DAMIEN, FATHER, the name in religion of Joseph de Veuster (1840-1889), Belgian missionary, was born at Tremeloo, near Louvain, on the 3rd of January 1840. He was educated for a business career, but in his eighteenth year entered the Church, joining the Society of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary (also known as the Picpus Congregation), and taking Damien as his name in religion. In October 1863, while he was still in minor orders, he went out as a missionary to the Pacific Islands, taking the place of his brother, who had been prevented by an illness. He reached Honolulu in March 1864, and was ordained priest in Whitsuntide of that year. Struck with the sad condition of the lepers, whom it was the practice of the Hawaian government to deport to the island of Molokai, he conceived an earnest desire to mitigate their lot, and in 1873 volunteered to take spiritual charge of the settlement at Molokai. Here he remained for the rest of his life, with occasional visits to Honolulu, until he became stricken with leprosy in 1885. Besides attending to the spiritual needs of the lepers, he managed, by the labour of his own hands and by appeals to the Hawaian government, to improve materially the water-supply, the dwellings, and the victualling of the settlement. For five years he worked alone; subsequently other resident priests from time to time assisted him. He succumbed to leprosy on the 15th of April 1889. Some ill-considered imputations upon Father Damien by a Presbyterian minister produced a memorable tract by Robert Louis Stevenson (An Open Letter to the Rev. Dr Hyde, 1890).

DAMIEN, DAD, the religious name of Joseph de Veuster (1840-1889), a Belgian missionary, was born in Tremeloo, near Louvain, on January 3, 1840. He was trained for a business career but, at eighteen, entered the Church, joining the Society of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary (also known as the Picpus Congregation), adopting Damien as his religious name. In October 1863, while still in minor orders, he went to the Pacific Islands as a missionary, replacing his brother who couldn’t go due to illness. He arrived in Honolulu in March 1864 and was ordained a priest during Whitsun that same year. Deeply moved by the tragic situation of the lepers, whom the Hawaiian government exiled to the island of Molokai, he developed a strong desire to help them and volunteered in 1873 to take on the spiritual leadership of the settlement at Molokai. He stayed there for the rest of his life, visiting Honolulu occasionally, until he was diagnosed with leprosy in 1885. In addition to addressing the spiritual needs of the lepers, he worked tirelessly, using his own labor and advocating with the Hawaiian government, to improve the water supply, housing, and food situation in the settlement. For five years, he worked alone, later receiving occasional help from other resident priests. He passed away from leprosy on April 15, 1889. Some thoughtless accusations against Father Damien by a Presbyterian minister led to a notable tract by Robert Louis Stevenson (An Open Letter to the Rev. Dr Hyde, 1890).

See also lives by E. Clifford (1889) and Fr. Pamphile (1889).

See also lives by E. Clifford (1889) and Fr. Pamphile (1889).

(J. M‘F.)

DAMIENS, ROBERT FRANÇOIS (1715-1757), a Frenchman who attained notoriety by his attack on Louis XV. of France in 1757, was born in a village near Arras in 1715, and early enlisted in the army. After his discharge, he became a menial in the college of the Jesuits in Paris, and was dismissed from this as well as from other employments for misconduct, his conduct earning for him the name of Robert le Diable. During the disputes of Clement XI. with the parlement of Paris the mind of Damiens seems to have been excited by the ecclesiastical disorganization which followed the refusal of the clergy to grant the sacraments to the Jansenists and Convulsionnaires; and he appears to have thought that peace would be restored by the death of the king. He, however, asserted, perhaps with truth, that he only intended to frighten the king without wounding him severely. On the 5th of January 1757, as the king was entering his carriage, he rushed forward and stabbed him with a knife, inflicting only a slight wound. He made no attempt to escape, and was at once seized. He was condemned as a regicide, and sentenced to be torn in pieces by horses in the Place de Grève. Before being put to death he was barbarously tortured with red-hot pincers, and molten wax, lead, and boiling oil were poured into his wounds. After his death his house was razed to the ground, his brothers and sisters were ordered to change their names, and his father, wife, and daughter were banished from France.

DAMIENS, ROBERT FRANÇOIS (1715-1757), a Frenchman who became infamous for attacking Louis XV of France in 1757, was born in a village near Arras in 1715 and joined the army at a young age. After leaving the army, he worked as a janitor at the Jesuit college in Paris but was fired from this job as well as others due to his bad behavior, which earned him the nickname Robert le Diable. During the conflicts between Clement XI and the parliament of Paris, Damiens seemed to be stirred up by the chaos that followed the clergy's refusal to grant sacraments to the Jansenists and Convulsionnaires; he apparently believed that the king's death would restore peace. However, he claimed, perhaps truthfully, that he only intended to scare the king without causing serious harm. On January 5, 1757, as the king was getting into his carriage, he rushed forward and stabbed him with a knife, causing only a minor injury. He made no effort to flee and was immediately captured. He was tried as a regicide and sentenced to be drawn and quartered in the Place de Grève. Before his execution, he was brutally tortured with red-hot pincers, and molten wax, lead, and boiling oil were poured into his wounds. After he was executed, his house was leveled, his siblings were forced to change their names, and his father, wife, and daughter were exiled from France.

See Pièces originales et procédures du procès fait à Robert François Damiens (Paris, 1757).

See Original Pieces and Proceedings of the Trial of Robert François Damiens (Paris, 1757).


DAMIETTA, a town of Lower Egypt, on the eastern (Damietta or Phatnitic) branch of the Nile, about 12 m. above its mouth, and 125 m. N.N.E. of Cairo by rail. Pop. (1907) 29,354. The town is built on the east bank of the river between it and Lake Menzala. Though in general ill-built and partly ruinous, the town possesses some fine mosques, with lofty minarets, public baths and busy bazaars. Along the river-front are many substantial houses furnished with terraces, and with steps leading to the water. Their wooden lattices of saw-work are very graceful. After Cairo and Alexandria, Damietta was for centuries the largest town in Egypt, but the silting up of the entrance to the harbour, the rise of Port Said, and the remarkable development of Alexandria have robbed Damietta of its value as a port. It has still, however, a coasting trade with Syria and the Levant. Ships over 6 ft. draught cannot enter the river, but must anchor in the offing. Lake Menzala yields large supplies of fish, which are dried and salted, and these, with rice, furnish the chief articles of trade.

DAMIETTA, is a town in Lower Egypt, situated on the eastern (Damietta or Phatnitic) branch of the Nile, about 12 miles upstream from its mouth and 125 miles N.N.E. of Cairo by rail. Its population was 29,354 in 1907. The town lies on the east bank of the river between it and Lake Menzala. Although generally poorly constructed and somewhat in ruins, Damietta has some impressive mosques with tall minarets, public baths, and bustling bazaars. Along the riverfront, there are many solid houses equipped with terraces and steps leading down to the water. Their wooden latticework is quite elegant. For centuries, after Cairo and Alexandria, Damietta was the largest town in Egypt, but the silting of the harbor entrance, the rise of Port Said, and the significant growth of Alexandria have diminished Damietta's importance as a port. Nevertheless, it still has a coastal trade with Syria and the Levant. Ships with over a 6-foot draft cannot enter the river and must anchor offshore. Lake Menzala provides a large supply of fish, which are dried and salted, along with rice, making up the main items of trade.

Damietta is a Levantine corruption of the Coptic name Tamiati, Arabic Dimyāt. The original town was 4 m. nearer the sea than the modern city, and first rose into importance on the decay of Pelusium. When it passed into the hands of the Saracens it became a place of great wealth and commerce, and, as the eastern bulwark of Egypt, was frequently attacked by the crusaders. The most remarkable of these sieges lasted eighteen months, from June 1218 to November 1219, and ended in the capture of the town, which was, however, held but for a brief period. In June 1249 Louis IX. of France occupied Damietta without opposition, but being defeated near Mansura in the February following, and compelled (6th April) to surrender himself prisoner, Damietta was restored to the Moslems as part of the ransom exacted. To prevent further attacks from the sea the Mameluke sultan Bibars blocked up the Phatnitic mouth of the Nile (about 1260), razed old Damietta to the ground, and transferred the inhabitants to the site of the modern town. It continued to be a place of commercial importance for a considerable period, until in fact Port Said gave the eastern part of the Delta a better port. Damietta gives its name to dimity, a kind of striped cloth, for which the place was at one time famous. Cotton and silk goods are still manufactured here.

Damietta is a Levantine variation of the Coptic name Tamiati and the Arabic Dimyāt. The original town was located 4 miles closer to the sea than the modern city and gained significance after the decline of Pelusium. When it came under Saracen control, it became a wealthy and bustling trade hub, frequently targeted by crusaders as Egypt's eastern defense. One of the most notable sieges lasted eighteen months, from June 1218 to November 1219, ending with the town's capture, though it was only held for a short time. In June 1249, Louis IX of France took Damietta without resistance, but after being defeated near Mansura the following February and forced to surrender on April 6, the town was returned to the Muslims as part of the ransom. To prevent future sea attacks, Mameluke sultan Bibars blocked the Phatnitic mouth of the Nile around 1260, destroyed old Damietta, and relocated the inhabitants to the site of the modern city. It remained an important commercial center for a long time until Port Said provided a better port for the eastern part of the Delta. Damietta is the namesake of dimity, a type of striped fabric for which the town was once well-known. Cotton and silk goods are still produced here.


DAMIRI, the common name of Kamāl ud-Dīn Muhammad ibn Mūsā ud-Damīrī (1344-1405), Arabian writer on canon law and natural history, belonged to one of the two towns called Damīra near Damietta and spent his life in Egypt. Of the Shafi’ite school of law, he became professor of tradition in the Ruknīyya at Cairo, and also at the mosque el-Azhar; in connexion with this work he wrote a commentary on the Minhāj ut-Tālibin of Nawāwi (q.v.). He is, however, better known in the history of literature for his Life of Animals (Hayāt ul-Hayawān), which treats in alphabetic order of 931 animals mentioned in the Koran, the traditions and the poetical and proverbial literature of the Arabs. The work is a compilation from over 500 prose writers and nearly 200 poets. The correct spelling of the names of the animals is given with an explanation of their meanings. The use of the animals in medicine, their lawfulness or unlawfulness as food, their position in folk-lore are the main subjects treated, while occasionally long irrelevant sections on political history are introduced.

DAMIRI, is the common name of Kamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Musa al-Damirī (1344-1405), an Arabian writer on canon law and natural history. He was from one of the two towns named Damīra near Damietta and spent his life in Egypt. A follower of the Shafi’ite school of law, he became a professor of tradition at the Ruknīyya in Cairo, as well as at the mosque el-Azhar. In connection with this work, he wrote a commentary on the Minhāj ut-Tālibin by Nawāwi (q.v.). However, he is better known in literary history for his Life of Animals (Hayāt ul-Hayawān), which discusses, in alphabetical order, 931 animals mentioned in the Koran, along with traditions and the poetic and proverbial literature of the Arabs. This work is a compilation from over 500 prose writers and nearly 200 poets. It includes the correct spelling of the animals' names, with an explanation of their meanings. The primary subjects covered are their use in medicine, their permissibility or prohibition as food, and their roles in folklore, with occasional lengthy, unrelated sections on political history included.

The work exists in three forms. The fullest has been published several times in Egypt; a mediate and a short recension exist in manuscript. Several editions have been made at various times of extracts, among them the poetical one by Suyūti (q.v.), which was translated into Latin by A. Ecchelensis (Paris, 1667). Bochartus in his Hierozoicon (1663) used Damīrī’s work. There is a translation of the whole into English by Lieutenant-Colonel Jayakar (Bombay, 1906-1908).

The work exists in three versions. The most complete one has been published multiple times in Egypt; there's a middle version and a short one in manuscript form. Various editions of extracts have been produced over the years, including a poetic version by Suyūti (see entry), which was translated into Latin by A. Ecchelensis (Paris, 1667). Bochartus referenced Damīrī’s work in his Hierozoicon (1663). There's a full translation into English by Lieutenant-Colonel Jayakar (Bombay, 1906-1908).

(G. W. T.)

DAMIRON, JEAN PHILIBERT (1794-1862), French philosopher, was born at Belleville. At nineteen he entered the normal school, where he studied under Burnouf, Villemain, and Cousin. After teaching for several years in provincial towns, he came to Paris, where he lectured on philosophy in various institutions, and finally became professor in the normal school, and titular professor at the Sorbonne. In 1824 he took part with P. F. Dubois and Th. S. Jouffroy in the establishment of the Globe; and he was also a member of the committee of the society which took for its motto Aide-toi, le ciel t’aidera. In 1833 he was appointed chevalier of the Legion of Honour, and in 1836 member of the Academy of Moral Sciences. Damiron died at Paris on the 11th of January 1862.

DAMIRON, JEAN PHILIBERT (1794-1862), French philosopher, was born in Belleville. At nineteen, he began attending the normal school, where he studied under Burnouf, Villemain, and Cousin. After teaching for several years in provincial cities, he moved to Paris, where he lectured on philosophy at various institutions and eventually became a professor at the normal school and a full professor at the Sorbonne. In 1824, he collaborated with P. F. Dubois and Th. S. Jouffroy to establish the Globe; he was also a member of the committee of the society that adopted the motto Aide-toi, le ciel t’aidera. In 1833, he was appointed chevalier of the Legion of Honour, and in 1836, he became a member of the Academy of Moral Sciences. Damiron passed away in Paris on January 11, 1862.

The chief works of Damiron, of which the best are his accounts of French philosophers, are the following:—An edition of the Nouveaux mélanges philosophiques de Jouffroy (1842), with a notice of the author, in which Damiron softened and omitted several expressions used by Jouffroy, which were opposed to the system of education adopted by the Sorbonne, an article which gave rise to a bitter controversy, and to a book by Pierre Leroux, De la mutilation des manuscrits de M. Jouffroy (1843); Essai sur l’histoire de la philosophie en France au XIXe siècle (1828, 3rd ed. 789 1834); Essai sur l’histoire de la philosophie en France au XVII. siècle (1846); Mémoires à servir pour l’histoire de la philosophie en France au XVIII. siècle (1858-1864); Cours de la philosophie; De la Providence (1849, 1850).

The main works of Damiron, with his finest being his writings on French philosophers, include:—An edition of the Nouveaux mélanges philosophiques de Jouffroy (1842), featuring a note about the author, in which Damiron softened and left out several phrases used by Jouffroy that contradicted the educational methods of the Sorbonne, an article that sparked a heated debate and led to a book by Pierre Leroux, De la mutilation des manuscrits de M. Jouffroy (1843); Essai sur l’histoire de la philosophie en France au XIXe siècle (1828, 3rd ed. 789 1834); Essai sur l’histoire de la philosophie en France au XVII. siècle (1846); Mémoires à servir pour l’histoire de la philosophie en France au XVIII. siècle (1858-1864); Cours de la philosophie; De la Providence (1849, 1850).

See A. Franck, Moralistes et philosophes (1872).

See A. Franck, *Moralists and Philosophers* (1872).


DAMJANICH, JÁNOS (1804-1849), Hungarian soldier, was born at Stása in the Banat. He entered the army as an officer in the 61st regiment of foot, and on the outbreak of the Hungarian war of independence was promoted to be a major in the third Honvéd regiment at Szeged. Although an orthodox Serb, he was from the first a devoted adherent of the Magyar liberals. He won his colonelcy by his ability and valour at the battles of Alibunár and Lagerdorf in 1848. At the beginning of 1849 he was appointed commander of the 3rd army corps in the middle Theiss, and quickly gained the reputation of being the bravest man in the Magyar army, winning engagement after engagement by sheer dash and daring. At the beginning of March 1849 he annihilated a brigade at Szolnók, perhaps his greatest exploit. He was elected deputy for Szolnók to the Hungarian diet, but declined the honour. Damjanich played a leading part in the general advance upon the Hungarian capital under Görgei. He was present at the engagements of Hort and Hatvan, converted the doubtful fight of Tápió-Bicsk into a victory, and fought with irresistible élan at the bloody battle of Isaszeg. At the ensuing review at Gödöllö, Kossuth expressed the sentiments of the whole nation when he doffed his hat as Damjanich’s battalions passed by. Always a fiery democrat, Damjanich uncompromisingly supported the extremist views of Kossuth, and was appointed commander of one of the three divisions which, under Görgei, entered Vācz in April 1849. His fame reached its culmination when, on the 19th of April, he won the battle of Nagysarló, which led to the relief of the hardly-pressed fortress of Komárom. At this juncture Damjanich broke his leg, an accident which prevented him from taking part in field operations at the most critical period of the war, when the Magyars had to abandon the capital for the second time. He recovered sufficiently, however, to accept the post of commandant of the fortress of Arad. After the Vilagós catastrophe, Damjanich, on being summoned to surrender, declared he would give up the fortress to a single company of Cossacks, but would defend it to the last drop of his blood against the whole Austrian army. He accordingly surrendered to the Russian general Demitrius Buturlin (1790-1849), by whom he was handed over to the Austrians, who shot him in the market-place of Arad a few days later.

DAMJANICH, JÁNOS (1804-1849), was a Hungarian soldier born in Stása, Banat. He joined the army as an officer in the 61st regiment of foot and, when the Hungarian war of independence began, rose to the rank of major in the third Honvéd regiment at Szeged. Even though he was an orthodox Serb, he was a loyal supporter of the Magyar liberals from the start. He earned his colonelcy through his skill and bravery in the battles of Alibunár and Lagerdorf in 1848. At the beginning of 1849, he was appointed commander of the 3rd army corps in middle Theiss and quickly became known as the bravest man in the Magyar army, achieving victory after victory through his boldness and daring. In early March 1849, he destroyed a brigade at Szolnók, which may have been his greatest achievement. He was elected deputy for Szolnók to the Hungarian diet but turned down the honor. Damjanich played a key role in the general advance toward the Hungarian capital under Görgei. He took part in the fights at Hort and Hatvan, transformed the tricky battle at Tápió-Bicsk into a victory, and fought with unstoppable energy at the bloody battle of Isaszeg. During the review at Gödöllö, Kossuth expressed the feelings of the entire nation by tipping his hat as Damjanich's battalions passed. A passionate democrat, Damjanich firmly supported Kossuth's radical views and was appointed commander of one of the three divisions that entered Vācz under Görgei in April 1849. His fame peaked on April 19, when he won the battle of Nagysarló, which relieved the beleaguered fortress of Komárom. At this point, Damjanich broke his leg, which prevented him from participating in the critical field operations during the war's most decisive moment, when the Magyars had to abandon the capital for the second time. However, he recovered enough to take on the role of commandant of the fortress of Arad. After the Vilagós catastrophe, when asked to surrender, Damjanich stated he would give up the fortress to just one company of Cossacks but would defend it to his last breath against the entire Austrian army. He eventually surrendered to Russian General Demitrius Buturlin (1790-1849), who handed him over to the Austrians, who executed him in the market square of Arad a few days later.

See Ödön Hamvay, Life of János Damjanich (Hung.), (Budapest, 1904).

See Ödön Hamvay, Life of János Damjanich (Hung.), (Budapest, 1904).

(R. N. B.)

DAMMAR, or Dammer (Hind, damar = resin, pitch), a resin, or rather series of resins, obtained from various coniferous trees of the genus Dammara (Agathis). East Indian dammar or cat’s eye resin is the produce of Dammara orientalis, which grows in Java, Sumatra, Borneo and other eastern islands and sometimes attains a height of 80-100 ft. It oozes in large quantities from the tree in a soft viscous state, with a highly aromatic odour, which, however, it loses as it hardens by exposure. The resin is much esteemed in oriental communities for incense-burning. Dammar is imported into England by way of Singapore; and as found in British markets it is a hard, transparent, brittle, straw-coloured resin, destitute of odour. It is readily soluble in ether, benzol and chloroform, and with oil of turpentine it forms a fine transparent varnish which dries clear, smooth and hard. The allied kauri gum, or dammar of New Zealand (Australian dammar), is produced by Dammara australis, or kauri-pine, the wood of which is used for wood paving. Much of the New Zealand resin is found fossil in circumstances analogous to the conditions under which the fossil copal of Zanzibar is obtained. Dammar is besides a generic Indian name for various other resins, which, however, are little known in western commerce. Of these the principal are black dammar (the Hindustani kala-damar), yielded by Canarium strictum, and white dammar, Indian copal, or piney varnish (sufed-damar), the produce of Vateria indica. Sal dammar (damar) is obtained from Shorea robusta; Hopea micrantha is the source of rock dammar (the Malay dammer-batu); and other species yield resins which are similarly named and differ little in physical properties.

DAMMAR, or Dammer (Hind, damar = resin, pitch) is a resin, or rather a series of resins, obtained from different coniferous trees of the genus Dammara (Agathis). The East Indian dammar or cat’s eye resin comes from Dammara orientalis, which grows in Java, Sumatra, Borneo, and other eastern islands, sometimes reaching heights of 80-100 ft. It flows in large amounts from the tree in a soft, sticky state and has a very aromatic scent, although it loses this smell as it hardens when exposed to air. The resin is highly valued in eastern cultures for burning incense. Dammar is imported into England via Singapore; when found in British markets, it appears as a hard, transparent, brittle, straw-colored resin with no scent. It easily dissolves in ether, benzene, and chloroform, and when mixed with turpentine oil, it creates a clear, smooth, and hard varnish. The related kauri gum, or New Zealand dammar (Australian dammar), comes from Dammara australis, or kauri-pine, which is used for wood paving. Much of the New Zealand resin is found fossilized in conditions similar to those from which fossil copal of Zanzibar is derived. Dammar is also a general Indian term for various other resins, which are not well-known in Western markets. The main types include black dammar (the Hindustani kala-damar), sourced from Canarium strictum, and white dammar, Indian copal, or piney varnish (sufed-damar), which comes from Vateria indica. Sal dammar (damar) is obtained from Shorea robusta; Hopea micrantha is where rock dammar (the Malay dammer-batu) comes from; and other species yield resins with similar names and physical properties.


DAMMARTIN, a small town of France, in the department of Seine et Marne, 22 m. N.E. of Paris. It is well situated on a hill forming part of the plateau of la Goële, and is known as Dammartin-en-Goële to distinguish it from Dammartin-sous-Tigeaux, a small commune in the same department. Dammartin is historically important as the seat of a countship of which the holders played a considerable part in French history. The earliest recorded count of Dammartin was a certain Hugh, who made himself master of the town in the 10th century; but his dynasty was replaced by another family in the 11th century. Reynald I. (Renaud), count of Dammartin (d. 1227), who was one of the coalition crushed by King Philip Augustus at the battle of Bouvines (1214), left two co-heiresses, of whom the elder, Maud (Matilda or Mahaut), married Philip Hurepel, son of Philip Augustus, and the second, Alix, married Jean de Trie, in whose line the countship was reunited after the death of Philip Hurepel’s son Alberic. The countship passed, through heiresses, to the houses of Fayel and Nanteuil, and in the 15th century was acquired by Antoine de Chabannes (d. 1488), one of the favourites of King Charles VII., by his marriage with Marguerite, heiress of Reynald V. of Nanteuil-Aci and Marie of Dammartin. This Antoine de Chabannes, count of Dammartin in right of his wife, fought under the standard of Joan of Arc, became a leader of the Écorcheurs, took part in the war of the public weal against Louis XI., and then fought for him against the Burgundians. The collegiate church at Dammartin was founded by him in 1480, and his tomb and effigy are in the chancel. His son, Jean de Chabannes, left three heiresses, of whom the second left a daughter who brought the countship to Philippe de Boulainvilliers, by whose heirs it was sold in 1554 to the dukes of Montmorency. In 1632 the countship was confiscated by Louis XIII. and bestowed on the princes of Condé.

DAMMARTIN, is a small town in France, located in the Seine et Marne department, 22 miles northeast of Paris. It sits on a hill that is part of the plateau of la Goële and is known as Dammartin-en-Goële to differentiate it from Dammartin-sous-Tigeaux, a smaller commune in the same area. Dammartin has historical significance as the center of a countship whose holders played a considerable role in French history. The earliest recorded count of Dammartin was Hugh, who took control of the town in the 10th century, but his dynasty was replaced by another family in the 11th century. Reynald I (Renaud), count of Dammartin (d. 1227), was part of the coalition defeated by King Philip Augustus at the battle of Bouvines in 1214. He left two co-heiresses; the elder, Maud (Matilda or Mahaut), married Philip Hurepel, son of Philip Augustus, while the second, Alix, married Jean de Trie, from whom the countship was reunited after the death of Philip Hurepel’s son Alberic. The countship passed through heiresses to the houses of Fayel and Nanteuil, and in the 15th century, it was acquired by Antoine de Chabannes (d. 1488), a favorite of King Charles VII, through his marriage to Marguerite, the heiress of Reynald V of Nanteuil-Aci and Marie of Dammartin. Antoine de Chabannes, count of Dammartin by right of his wife, fought under Joan of Arc, became a leader of the Écorcheurs, participated in the war of the public weal against Louis XI, and later fought for him against the Burgundians. He founded the collegiate church in Dammartin in 1480, and his tomb and effigy are located in the chancel. His son, Jean de Chabannes, had three heiresses, one of whom had a daughter who brought the countship to Philippe de Boulainvilliers; it was sold in 1554 to the dukes of Montmorency. In 1632, Louis XIII confiscated the countship and granted it to the princes of Condé.


DAMME, a decayed city of Belgium, 5 m. N.E. of Bruges, once among the most important commercial ports of Europe. It is situated on the canal from Bruges to Sluys (Ecluse), but in the middle ages a navigable channel or river called the Zwyn gave ships access to it from the North Sea. The great naval battle of Sluys, in which Edward III. destroyed the French fleet and secured the command of the channel, was fought in the year 1340 at the mouth of the Zwyn. About 1395 this channel began to show signs of silting up, and during the next hundred years the process proved rapid. In 1490 a treaty was signed at Damme between the people of Bruges and the archduke Maximilian, and very soon after this event the channel became completely closed up, and the foreign merchant gilds or “nations” left the place for Antwerp. This signified the death of the port and was indirectly fatal to Bruges as well. The marriage of Charles the Bold and Margaret of York, sister of Edward IV., was celebrated at Damme on the 2nd of July 1468. It will give some idea of the importance of the town to mention that it had its own maritime law, known as Droit maritime de Damme. The new ship canal from Zeebrugge will not revive the ancient port, as it follows a different route, leaving Damme and Ecluse quite untouched. Damme, although long neglected, preserves some remains of its former prosperity, thanks to its remoteness from the area of international strife in the Low Countries. The tower of Notre Dame, dating from 1180, is a landmark across the dunes, and the church behind it, although a shell, merits inspection. Out of a portion of the ancient markets a hôtel-de-ville of modest dimensions has been constructed, and in the hospital of St Jean are a few pictures. Camille Lemonnier has given in one of his Causeries a striking picture of this faded scene of former greatness, now a solitude in which the few residents seem spectres rather than living figures.

DAMME, a rundown city in Belgium, 5 miles northeast of Bruges, was once one of the most significant commercial ports in Europe. It sits on the canal connecting Bruges to Sluys (Ecluse), but in the Middle Ages, a navigable channel or river called the Zwyn allowed ships to reach it from the North Sea. The major naval battle of Sluys, where Edward III defeated the French fleet and gained control of the channel, took place in 1340 at the mouth of the Zwyn. Around 1395, this channel began to fill in, and over the next hundred years, the process accelerated. In 1490, a treaty was signed in Damme between the people of Bruges and Archduke Maximilian, and shortly after, the channel became completely blocked, leading foreign merchant guilds or “nations” to relocate to Antwerp. This marked the end of the port and was indirectly detrimental to Bruges as well. The marriage of Charles the Bold and Margaret of York, sister of Edward IV, took place in Damme on July 2, 1468. To highlight the town's importance, it had its own maritime law known as Droit maritime de Damme. The new ship canal from Zeebrugge will not revive the historic port, as it follows a different path, leaving Damme and Ecluse untouched. Although Damme has long been overlooked, it retains some remnants of its former wealth, thanks to its distance from the areas of conflict in the Low Countries. The Notre Dame tower, built in 1180, stands as a landmark across the dunes, and the church behind it, despite being in ruins, is worth visiting. A small town hall has been built from part of the old market area, and there are a few paintings in the St. Jean hospital. Camille Lemonnier, in one of his Causeries, provides a vivid description of this once-great, now desolate place, where the few residents seem more like ghosts than living people.


DAMOCLES, one of the courtiers of the elder Dionysius of Syracuse. When he spoke in extravagant terms of the happiness of his sovereign, Dionysius is said to have invited him to a sumptuous banquet, at which he found himself seated under 790 a naked sword suspended by a single hair (Cicero, Tusc. v. 21; Horace, Odes, iii. 1, 17; Persius iii. 40).

DAMOCLES, was one of the courtiers of the older Dionysius of Syracuse. When he spoke in lavish terms about the happiness of his ruler, Dionysius is said to have invited him to a lavish banquet, where he found himself sitting under 790 a naked sword hanging by a single hair (Cicero, Tusc. v. 21; Horace, Odes, iii. 1, 17; Persius iii. 40).


DAMOH, a town and district of British India, in the Jubbulpore division of the Central Provinces. The town has a railway station, 48 m. E. of Saugor. Pop. (1901) 13,355. It has a considerable cattle-market, and a number of small industries, such as weaving, dyeing and pottery-making.

DAMOH, is a town and district in British India, located in the Jubbulpore division of the Central Provinces. The town has a railway station, 48 miles east of Saugor. Population (1901) was 13,355. It features a significant cattle market and several small industries, including weaving, dyeing, and pottery-making.

The District of Damoh has an area of 2816 sq. m. Except on the south and east, where the offshoots from the surrounding hills and patches of jungle break up the country, the district consists of open plains of varying degrees of fertility, interspersed with low ranges and isolated heights. The richest tracts lie in the centre. The gentle declivity of the surface and the porous character of the prevailing sandstone formation render the drainage excellent. All the streams flow from south to north. The Sunar and the Bairma, the two principal rivers, traverse the entire length of the district. Little use has been made of any of the rivers for irrigation, though in many places they offer great facilities for the purpose. Damoh was first formed into a separate district in 1861. In 1901 the population was 285,326, showing a decrease of 12% in one decade due to famine. Damoh suffered severely from the famine of 1896-1897. Fortunately the famine of 1900 was little felt. A branch of the Indian Midland railway was opened throughout from Saugor to Katni in January 1899.

The Damoh District covers an area of 2816 sq. m. Except for the south and east, where offshoots from the surrounding hills and patches of jungle break up the landscape, the district mainly consists of open plains with varying levels of fertility, mixed with low ranges and isolated hills. The richest areas are in the center. The slight slope of the land and the porous nature of the sandstone make the drainage excellent. All the rivers flow from south to north. The Sunar and the Bairma, the two main rivers, run the entire length of the district. Not much has been done to use any of the rivers for irrigation, even though they provide great opportunities for it in many areas. Damoh became a separate district in 1861. By 1901, the population was 285,326, reflecting a 12% decrease over the decade due to famine. Damoh was hit hard by the famine of 1896-1897. Luckily, the famine of 1900 was less impactful. A branch of the Indian Midland railway opened from Saugor to Katni in January 1899.


DAMON, of Syracuse, a Pythagorean, celebrated for his disinterested affection for Phintias (not, as commonly given, Pythias), a member of the same sect. Condemned to death by Dionysius the Elder (or Younger) of Syracuse, Phintias begged to be set at liberty for a short time that he might arrange his affairs. Damon pledged his life for the return of his friend; and Phintias faithfully returned before the appointed day of execution. The tyrant, to express his admiration of their fidelity, released both the friends and begged to be admitted to their friendship (Diod. Sic. x. 4; Cicero, De Off. iii. 10). Hyginus (Fab. 257, who is followed by Schiller in his ballad, Die Bürgschaft) tells a similar story, in which the two friends are named Moerus and Selinuntius.

DAMON, from Syracuse, a Pythagorean known for his selfless love for Phintias (not, as often said, Pythias), who was part of the same group. When Phintias was sentenced to death by Dionysius the Elder (or Younger) of Syracuse, he requested to be released briefly to settle his affairs. Damon offered his life as a guarantee for his friend's return; and Phintias did come back before the scheduled execution day. The tyrant, impressed by their loyalty, freed both friends and asked to be included in their friendship (Diod. Sic. x. 4; Cicero, De Off. iii. 10). Hyginus (Fab. 257, who is referenced by Schiller in his ballad, Die Bürgschaft) shares a similar story, where the two friends are named Moerus and Selinuntius.


DAMOPHON, a Greek sculptor of Messene, who executed many statues for the people of Messene, Megalopolis, Aegium and other cities of Peloponnesus. Considerable fragments, including three colossal heads from a group by him representing Demeter, Persephone, Artemis and the giant Anytus, have been discovered on the site of Lycosura in Arcadia, where was a temple of the goddess called “The Mistress.” They are preserved in part in the museum at Athens and partly on the spot. Hence there has arisen a great controversy as to the date of the artist, who has been assigned to various periods, from the 4th century B.C. to the 2nd A.D. A good account of the whole matter will be found in Frazer’s Pausanias, iv. 372-379. Frazer wisely inclines to an early date; it is in fact difficult to find any period, when the cities mentioned were in a position to found temples, later than the time of Alexander.

DAMOPHON, was a Greek sculptor from Messene who created many statues for the people of Messene, Megalopolis, Aegium, and other cities in the Peloponnesus. Significant fragments have been found, including three colossal heads from a group representing Demeter, Persephone, Artemis, and the giant Anytus, at the site of Lycosura in Arcadia, where there was a temple dedicated to the goddess known as "The Mistress." Some of these works are stored in the museum in Athens, while others remain on-site. This has sparked a major debate over the artist's dating, with suggestions ranging from the 4th century B.C. to the 2nd A.D. A comprehensive discussion of the issue can be found in Frazer’s Pausanias, iv. 372-379. Frazer tends to favor an earlier date; in fact, it's challenging to identify any time when the mentioned cities could have built temples later than the era of Alexander.


DAMP, a common Teutonic word, meaning vapour or mist (cf. Ger. Dampf, steam), and hence moisture. In its primitive sense the word persists in the vocabulary of coal-miners. Their “firedamp” (formerly fulminating damp) is marsh gas, which, when mixed with air and exploded, produced “choke damp,” “after damp,” or “suffocating damp” (carbon dioxide). “Black damp” consists of accumulations of irrespirable gases, mostly nitrogen, which cause the lights to burn dimly, and the term “white damp” is sometimes applied to carbon monoxide. As a verb, the word means to stifle or check; hence damped vibrations or oscillations are those which have been reduced or stopped, instead of being allowed to die out naturally; the “dampers” of the piano are small pieces of felt-covered wood which fall upon the strings and stop their vibrations as the keys are allowed to rise; and the “damper” of a chimney or flue, by restricting the draught, lessens the rate of combustion.

DAMP, is a common German word that means vapor or mist (like the German word Dampf, meaning steam), and thus refers to moisture. In its original form, the word is still used in the language of coal miners. Their “firedamp” (once called fulminating damp) is marsh gas, which, when mixed with air and ignited, creates “choke damp,” “after damp,” or “suffocating damp” (carbon dioxide). “Black damp” consists of buildups of non-breathable gases, mostly nitrogen, that cause lights to burn dimly, while the term “white damp” is sometimes used for carbon monoxide. As a verb, the word means to stifle or restrict; therefore, damped vibrations or oscillations are those that have been reduced or stopped instead of being allowed to fade out naturally; the “dampers” of a piano are small pieces of felt-covered wood that fall onto the strings and stop their vibrations when the keys are released; and the “damper” of a chimney or flue, by limiting the airflow, reduces the rate of combustion.


DAMPIER, WILLIAM (1652-1715), English buccaneer, navigator and hydrographer, was born at East Coker, Somersetshire, in 1652 (baptized 8th of June). Having early become an orphan, he was placed with the master of a ship at Weymouth, in which he made a voyage to Newfoundland. On his return he sailed to Bantam in the East Indies. He served in 1673 in the Dutch War under Sir Edward Sprague, and was present at two engagements (28th of May; 4th of June); but then fell sick and was put ashore. In 1674 he became an under-manager of a Jamaica estate, but continued only a short time in this situation. He afterwards engaged in the coasting trade, and thus acquired an accurate knowledge of all the ports and bays of the island. He made two voyages to the Bay of Campeachy (1675-1676), and remained for some time with the logwood-cutters, varying this occupation with buccaneering. In 1678 he returned to England, again visiting Jamaica in 1679 and joining a party of buccaneers, with whom he crossed the Isthmus of Darien, spent the year 1680 on the Peruvian coast, and sacking, plundering and burning, made his way down to Juan Fernandez Island. After serving with another privateering expedition in the Spanish Main, he went to Virginia and engaged with a captain named Cook for a privateering voyage against the Spaniards in the South Seas. They sailed in August 1683, touched at the Guinea coast, and then proceeded round Cape Horn into the Pacific. Having touched at Juan Fernandez, they made the coast of South America, cruising along Chile and Peru. They took some prizes, and with these they proceeded to the Galapagos Islands and to Mexico, which last they fell in with near Cape Blanco. While they lay here Captain Cook died, and the command devolved on Captain Davis, who, with several other pirate vessels, English and French, raided the west American shores for the next year, attacking Guayaquil, Puebla Nova, &c. At last Dampier, leaving Davis, went on board Swan’s ship, and proceeded with him along the northern parts of Mexico as far as southern California. Swan then proposed, as the expedition met with “bad success” on the Mexican coast, to run across the Pacific and return by the East Indies. They started from Cape Corrientes on the 31st of March 1686, and reached Guam in the Ladrones on the 20th of May; the men, having almost come to an end of their rations, had decided to kill and eat their leaders next, beginning with the “lusty and fleshy” Swan. After six months’ drunkenness and debauchery in the Philippines, the majority of the crew, including Dampier, left Swan and thirty-six others behind in Mindanao, cruised (1687-1688) from Manila to Pulo Condore, from the latter to China, and from China to the Spice Islands and New Holland (the Australian mainland). In March 1688 they were off Sumatra, and in May off the Nicobars, where Dampier was marooned (at his own request, as he declares, for the purpose of establishing a trade in ambergris) with two other Englishmen, a Portuguese and some Malays. He and his companions contrived to navigate a canoe to Achin in Sumatra; but the fatigues and distress of the voyage proved fatal to several and nearly carried off Dampier himself. After making several voyages to different places of the East Indies (Tongking, Madras, &c.), he acted for some time, and apparently somewhat unwillingly, as gunner to the English fort of Benkulen. Thence he ultimately contrived to return to England in 1691.

DAMPIER, WILLIAM (1652-1715), English buccaneer, navigator, and hydrographer, was born in East Coker, Somersetshire, in 1652 (baptized June 8). After becoming an orphan at a young age, he was placed with a shipmaster in Weymouth, where he made a trip to Newfoundland. Upon returning, he sailed to Bantam in the East Indies. He served in the Dutch War in 1673 under Sir Edward Sprague, participating in two battles (May 28; June 4); however, he later fell ill and was put ashore. In 1674, he took a job as an under-manager on a Jamaican estate but only stayed for a short period. He then got involved in the coasting trade, gaining a detailed knowledge of all the ports and bays of the island. He completed two voyages to the Bay of Campeachy (1675-1676) and spent time with logwood-cutters, mixing this work with buccaneering. In 1678, he returned to England and visited Jamaica again in 1679, where he joined a group of buccaneers who crossed the Isthmus of Darien. He spent 1680 on the Peruvian coast, where he raided and plundered, making his way down to Juan Fernandez Island. After serving with another privateering expedition in the Spanish Main, he went to Virginia and partnered with a captain named Cook for a privateering mission against the Spaniards in the South Seas. They set sail in August 1683, stopped at the Guinea coast, and then rounded Cape Horn into the Pacific. After touching at Juan Fernandez, they made it to the South American coast, cruising along Chile and Peru. They captured several prizes and then proceeded to the Galapagos Islands and Mexico, encountering it near Cape Blanco. While there, Captain Cook died, and command passed to Captain Davis, who, along with several other English and French pirate ships, raided the western American shores for the next year, attacking Guayaquil, Puebla Nova, and more. Eventually, Dampier left Davis to join Swan's ship and sailed along the northern parts of Mexico as far as southern California. Because the expedition had “bad success” on the Mexican coast, Swan suggested they cross the Pacific and return through the East Indies. They departed from Cape Corrientes on March 31, 1686, and reached Guam in the Ladrones on May 20; the crew almost ran out of rations and decided to kill and eat their leaders next, starting with the “lusty and fleshy” Swan. After six months of drunkenness and debauchery in the Philippines, most of the crew, including Dampier, left Swan and thirty-six others behind in Mindanao. They cruised (1687-1688) from Manila to Pulo Condore, then to China, and from there to the Spice Islands and New Holland (the Australian mainland). In March 1688, they were off Sumatra, and in May off the Nicobars, where Dampier was marooned (at his own request, as he claims, to establish a trade in ambergris) with two other Englishmen, a Portuguese, and some Malays. He and his companions managed to navigate a canoe to Achin in Sumatra; however, the hardships of the journey took a toll on several, nearly claiming Dampier's life. After making several trips to various locations in the East Indies (Tongking, Madras, etc.), he reluctantly served as the gunner for the English fort of Benkulen for a time. Eventually, he managed to return to England in 1691.

In 1699 he was sent out by the English admiralty in command of the “Roebuck,” especially designed for discovery in and around Australia. He sailed from the Downs, the 14th of January, with twenty months’ provisions, touched at the Canaries, Cape Verdes and Bahia, and ran from Brazil round the Cape of Good Hope direct to Australia, whose west coast he reached on the 26th of July, in about 26° S. lat. Anchoring in Shark’s Bay, he began a careful exploration of the neighbouring shore-lands, but found no good harbour or estuary, no fresh water or provisions. In September, accordingly, he left Australia, recruited and refitted at Timor, and thence made for New Guinea, where he arrived on the 3rd of December. By sailing along to its easternmost extremity, he discovered that it was terminated by an island, which he named New Britain (now Neu Pommern), whose north, south and east coasts he surveyed. That St George’s Bay was really St George’s Channel, dividing the island into two, was not perceived by Dampier; it was the discovery 791 of his successor, Philip Carteret. Nor did Dampier visit the west coast of New Britain or realize its small extent on that side. He was prevented from prosecuting his discoveries by the discontent of his men and the state of his ship. In May 1700 he was again at Timor, and thence he proceeded homeward by Batavia (4th July-17th October) and the Cape of Good Hope. In February 1701 he arrived off Ascension Island, when the vessel foundered (21st-24th February), the crew reaching land and staying in the island till the 3rd of April, when they were conveyed to England by some East Indiamen and warships bound for home. In 1703-1707 Dampier commanded two government privateers on an expedition to the South Seas with grievous unsuccess; better fortune attended him on his last voyage, as pilot to Woodes Rogers in the circumnavigation of 1708-1711. On the former venture Alexander Selkirk, the master of one of the vessels, was marooned at Juan Fernandez; on the latter Selkirk was rescued and a profit of nearly £200,000 was made. But four years before the prize-money was paid Dampier died (March 1715) in St Stephen’s parish, Coleman Street, London. Dampier’s accounts of his voyages are famous. He had a genius for observation, especially of the scientific phenomena affecting a seaman’s life; his style is usually admirable—easy, clear and manly. His knowledge of natural history, though not scientific, appears surprisingly accurate and trustworthy.

In 1699, he was sent by the English admiralty to command the “Roebuck,” which was specifically designed for exploration in and around Australia. He set sail from the Downs on January 14th with provisions for twenty months, made stops at the Canaries, Cape Verde, and Bahia, and traveled from Brazil around the Cape of Good Hope directly to Australia, reaching its west coast on July 26th at about 26° S latitude. After anchoring in Shark’s Bay, he began a thorough exploration of the nearby shorelines but found no suitable harbors or estuaries, nor any fresh water or provisions. Consequently, in September, he left Australia, resupplied and repaired his ship at Timor, and then headed to New Guinea, arriving on December 3rd. By sailing to its easternmost point, he discovered it ended in an island he named New Britain (now Neu Pommern), and he surveyed its north, south, and east coasts. However, Dampier did not recognize that St George’s Bay was actually St George’s Channel, which divided the island in two; that was the discovery of his successor, Philip Carteret. Additionally, Dampier did not visit the west coast of New Britain or realize its small size on that side. His discoveries were hindered by his crew's discontent and the condition of his ship. In May 1700, he was back at Timor and made his way home via Batavia (July 4th - October 17th) and the Cape of Good Hope. In February 1701, he arrived near Ascension Island, where the ship sank (February 21st-24th). The crew managed to reach land and stayed on the island until April 3rd, when they were taken back to England by some East Indiamen and warships heading home. From 1703 to 1707, Dampier commanded two government privateers on an expedition to the South Seas with little success; however, he had better luck on his last voyage, serving as pilot to Woodes Rogers during the circumnavigation from 1708 to 1711. During the first expedition, Alexander Selkirk, the captain of one of the ships, was left on Juan Fernandez; on the latter voyage, Selkirk was rescued, and nearly £200,000 in profit was made. But four years before the prize money was distributed, Dampier passed away (March 1715) in St Stephen’s parish, Coleman Street, London. Dampier’s accounts of his voyages are well-known. He had a talent for observation, particularly regarding the scientific aspects of a seaman’s life; his writing is generally excellent—smooth, clear, and strong. His knowledge of natural history, though not formal, seems surprisingly accurate and reliable.

See Dampier’s New Voyage Round the World (1697); his Voyages and Descriptions (1699), a work supplementary to the New Voyage; his Voyage to New Holland in ... 1699 (1703, 1709); also Funnell’s Narrative of the Voyage of 1703-1707; Dampier’s Vindication of his Voyage (1707); Welbe’s Answer to Captain Dampier’s Vindication; Woodes Rogers, Cruising Voyage Round the World (1712).

See Dampier’s New Voyage Round the World (1697); his Voyages and Descriptions (1699), which is a follow-up to the New Voyage; his Voyage to New Holland in ... 1699 (1703, 1709); also Funnell’s Narrative of the Voyage of 1703-1707; Dampier’s Vindication of his Voyage (1707); Welbe’s Answer to Captain Dampier’s Vindication; Woodes Rogers, Cruising Voyage Round the World (1712).

(C. R. B.)

DAN (from a Hebrew word meaning “judge”), a tribe of Israel, named after a son of Jacob and Bilhah, the maid of Rachel. The meaning of the name (referred to in Gen. xxx. 5 seq., xlix. 16) connects Dan with Dinah (“judgment”), the daughter of Leah, whose story in Gen. xxxiv. (cf. xlix. 5 seq.) seems to point to an Israelite occupation of Shechem, a treacherous massacre of its Canaanite inhabitants by Simeon and Levi, and the subsequent scattering of the latter. But, historically, the occupation of Shechem, whether by conquest (Gen. xlviii. 22) or purchase (xxxiii. 19), is as obscure as the conquest of central Palestine itself (see Joshua), and the true relation between Dan and Dinah is uncertain. The earliest seats of Dan lay at Zorah, Eshtaol and Kirjath-jearim, west of Jerusalem, whence they were forced to seek a new home, and a valuable narrative detailing some of the events of the move is preserved in the story of the sanctuary of the Ephraimite Micah (q.v.). Laish (Leshem) was taken with the sword and re-named Dan (see below). Here a sanctuary was founded under the guardianship of Jonathan, the grandson of Moses, which survived until the “captivity of the land” (by Tiglath-Pileser IV. in 733-732), or, according to another notice, until the fall of Shiloh (Judg. xviii. 30 seq.). Dan formed the northern limit of the land,1 and with Abel (-beth-Maacah) was an old place renowned for Israelite lore (2 Sam. xx. 18; on the text see the commentaries). Little can be made of Dan’s history. The reference to it as a seafaring folk (Judg. v. 17) is difficult, and it is uncertain whether its character as represented in Gen. xlix. 17, Deut. xxxiii. 22, refers to its earlier or later seat. The post-exilic accounts of its southern border would make it part of Judah, and both of them are in tradition the greatest of the tribes in the wanderings in the wilderness. Dan was subsequently either regarded as the embodiment of wickedness or entirely ignored; late speculation that the Antichrist should spring from it appears to be based upon an interpretation of Gen. xlix. 17 (see further R. H. Charles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, pp. 128 seq.).

DAN (from a Hebrew word meaning “judge”), is a tribe of Israel named after a son of Jacob and Bilhah, Rachel's maid. The name's meaning (mentioned in Gen. xxx. 5 seq., xlix. 16) connects Dan with Dinah (“judgment”), Leah's daughter, whose story in Gen. xxxiv. (cf. xlix. 5 seq.) suggests an Israelite takeover of Shechem, marked by a treacherous massacre of its Canaanite residents by Simeon and Levi, leading to their eventual scattering. However, the historical context of Shechem's occupation, whether through conquest (Gen. xlviii. 22) or purchase (xxxiii. 19), remains unclear, just as the overall conquest of central Palestine (see Joshua), leaving the true connection between Dan and Dinah uncertain. Dan's earliest settlements were at Zorah, Eshtaol, and Kirjath-jearim, located west of Jerusalem, from where they had to find a new home. A valuable narrative describing some events of this migration is preserved in the tale of the sanctuary of the Ephraimite Micah (q.v.). Laish (Leshem) was conquered by force and renamed Dan (see below). A sanctuary was established here under the protection of Jonathan, Moses' grandson, which lasted until the "captivity of the land" (by Tiglath-Pileser IV in 733-732), or according to another source, until Shiloh fell (Judg. xviii. 30 seq.). Dan marked the northern boundary of the land, 1, and along with Abel (-beth-Maacah), was a historic location known for Israelite traditions (2 Sam. xx. 18; see commentaries for the text). Dan's history remains vague. Its mention as a seafaring people (Judg. v. 17) is challenging, and it’s unclear whether its traits described in Gen. xlix. 17, Deut. xxxiii. 22, relate to its earlier or later settlement. Post-exilic descriptions of its southern border would categorize it as part of Judah, and traditionally, it was regarded as one of the greatest tribes during the wilderness wanderings. Later, Dan was either viewed as the personification of wickedness or completely overlooked; there are even speculations suggesting the Antichrist would emerge from it, rooted in an interpretation of Gen. xlix. 17 (see further R. H. Charles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, pp. 128 seq.).

A brief record of the Danite migration is found in some old detached fragments which K. Budde (Richter und Samuel) ingeniously arranges thus:—Judg. i. 34 (Amorite pressure); Josh. xix. 47a (see the Septuagint), 47b; Judg. i. 35. The position of Judg. xvii. seq. (after the stories of Samson) may imply that the Philistines, not the Amorites, caused the migration (cf. 1 Sam. vii. 14, where the two ethnical terms interchange). The Mosaic priesthood and the reference to Shiloh suggest that the story of Eli may have belonged to this cycle of narratives; and the spoliation of the unknown sanctuary of the Ephraimite Micah and the character of the fierce Puritan tribesmen connect Dan with the problems of the tribes of Simeon and Levi. Dan’s northern home lay near Beth-rehob, which appears to have been Aramean in David’s time (2 Sam. x. 6), and it is possible that the migration has been antedated (cf. similarly the case of Jair, Num. xxxii. 41, Judg. x. 3-5). The Tyrian artificer sent to Solomon by Hiram was partly of Danite descent (2 Chron. ii. 13 seq.; but of Naphtali, so 1 Kings vii. 14); and of the two workers in brass who took part in the building of the tabernacle in the desert, one was Danite (Oholiab, Ex. xxxi. 6), while the other appears to have been Calebite (Bezalel, ib., v. 2; 1 Chron. ii. 20). The Kenites, too, have been regarded as a race of metal-workers (see Cain, Kenites), and there is evidence which would show that Danites, Calebites and Kenites were once closely associated in tradition.

A brief record of the Danite migration is found in some old separate fragments that K. Budde (Richter und Samuel) cleverly arranges like this:—Judg. i. 34 (Amorite pressure); Josh. xix. 47a (see the Septuagint), 47b; Judg. i. 35. The placement of Judg. xvii. seq. (after the stories of Samson) may suggest that the Philistines, rather than the Amorites, drove the migration (cf. 1 Sam. vii. 14, where the two ethnic terms are used interchangeably). The Mosaic priesthood and the mention of Shiloh imply that the story of Eli may have been part of this group of narratives; and the plundering of the unknown sanctuary of the Ephraimite Micah and the nature of the fierce Puritan tribesmen link Dan with the issues of the tribes of Simeon and Levi. Dan’s northern home was near Beth-rehob, which seems to have been Aramean during David’s time (2 Sam. x. 6), and it’s possible that the migration has been dated earlier (cf. similarly the case of Jair, Num. xxxii. 41, Judg. x. 3-5). The Tyrian craftsman sent to Solomon by Hiram was partly of Danite ancestry (2 Chron. ii. 13 seq.; but of Naphtali, as per 1 Kings vii. 14); and of the two bronze workers who participated in the construction of the tabernacle in the desert, one was Danite (Oholiab, Ex. xxxi. 6), while the other seems to have been Calebite (Bezalel, ib., v. 2; 1 Chron. ii. 20). The Kenites are also considered a group of metalworkers (see Cain, Kenites), and there is evidence suggesting that Danites, Calebites, and Kenites were once closely connected in tradition.

See S. A. Cook, Critical Notes, Index, s.v.: E. Meyer, Israeliten, pp. 525 seq.

See S. A. Cook, Critical Notes, Index, s.v.: E. Meyer, Israeliten, pp. 525 seq.

(S. A. C.)

1 On the late phrase “Dan to Beersheba” as the extreme points of religious life in Israel, see H. W. Hogg, Expositor, viii. 411-421 (1898); and for a complete discussion of the tribe, his art. “Dan” in Encyc. Bib.

1 For the phrase “Dan to Beersheba” as the farthest points of religious life in Israel, refer to H. W. Hogg, Expositor, viii. 411-421 (1898); and for a thorough discussion of the tribe, see his article “Dan” in Encyc. Bib.


DAN, a town of ancient Israel, near the head-waters of the Jordan, inhabited before its conquest by the Danites by a peaceful commercial population who called their city Laish or Leshem (Josh. xix. 47, Judg. xviii.). It appears to have been even at this early period a sacred city, the shrine of Micah being removed hither, and it was chosen by Jeroboam as the site of one of his calf-shrines. It makes the north limit of Palestine in the proverbial expression “from Dan to Beersheba.” The town was plundered by Benhadad of Damascus, and appears from that time to have gradually declined. Its site is sought in the mound called Tell-el-Kadi, “the hill of the judge” (Dan = “judge” in Hebrew), though weighty authorities incline to place it 4 m. east of this, at Banias, the old Caesarea Philippi. (See above.)

DAN, a town in ancient Israel near the upper reaches of the Jordan River, was inhabited by a peaceful trading community before the Danites conquered it. They referred to their city as Laish or Leshem (Josh. xix. 47, Judg. xviii.). Even at this early time, it seemed to be a holy city, as Micah's shrine was relocated there, and Jeroboam selected it as the location for one of his calf shrines. It marks the northern boundary of Palestine in the saying “from Dan to Beersheba.” The town was raided by Benhadad of Damascus and appears to have gradually declined thereafter. Its location is believed to be at the mound known as Tell-el-Kadi, “the hill of the judge” (Dan means “judge” in Hebrew), although significant authorities suggest it may be 4 miles east of this, at Banias, the ancient Caesarea Philippi. (See above.)


DANA, CHARLES ANDERSON (1819-1897), American journalist, was born in Hinsdale, New Hampshire, on the 8th of August 1819. At the age of twelve he became a clerk in his uncle’s general store at Buffalo, which failed in 1837. In 1839 he entered Harvard, but the impairment of his eyesight in 1841 forced him to leave college, and caused him to abandon his intention of entering the ministry and of studying in Germany. From September 1841 until March 1846 he lived at Brook Farm, where he was made one of the trustees of the farm, was head waiter when the farm became a Fourierite phalanx, and was in charge of the phalanstery’s finances when its buildings were burned in 1846. He had previously written for (and managed) the Harbinger, the Brook Farm organ, and had written as early as 1844 for the Boston Chronotype. In 1847 he joined the staff of the New York Tribune, and in 1848 he wrote from Europe letters to it and other papers on the revolutionary movements of that year. Returning to the Tribune in 1849, he became its managing-editor, and in this capacity actively promoted the anti-slavery cause, seeming to shape the paper’s policy at a time when Greeley was undecided and vacillating. In 1862 his resignation was asked for by the board of managers of the Tribune, apparently because of wide temperamental differences between him and Greeley. Secretary of War Stanton immediately made him a special investigating agent of the war department; in this capacity Dana discovered frauds of quartermasters and contractors, and as the “eyes of the administration,” as Lincoln called him, he spent much time at the front, and sent to Stanton frequent reports concerning the capacity and methods of various generals in the field; he went through the Vicksburg campaign and was at Chickamauga and Chattanooga, and urged the placing of General Grant in supreme command of all the armies in the field. Dana was second assistant-secretary of war in 1864-1865, and in 1865-1866 conducted the newly-established and unsuccessful Chicago Republican. He became the editor and part-owner of the New York Sun in 1868, and remained in control of it until his death at Glen Cove, Long Island, New York, 792 on the 17th of October 1897. Under Dana’s control the Sun opposed the impeachment of President Johnson; it supported Grant for the presidency in 1868; it was a sharp critic of Grant as president; and in 1872 took part in the Liberal Republican revolt and urged Greeley’s nomination. It favoured Tilden, the Democratic candidate for the presidency, in 1876, opposed the Electoral Commission and continually referred to Hayes as the “fraud president.” In 1884 it supported Benjamin F. Butler, the candidate of Greenback-Labor and Anti-Monopolist parties, for the presidency, and opposed Blaine (Republican) and even more bitterly Cleveland (Democrat); it supported Cleveland and opposed Harrison in 1888, although it had bitterly criticized Cleveland’s first administration, and was to criticize nearly every detail of his second, with the exception of Federal interference in the Pullman strike of 1894; and in 1896, on the free-silver issue, it opposed Bryan, the Democratic candidate for the presidency. Dana’s literary style came to be the style of the Sun—simple, strong, clear, “boiled down.” The Art of Newspaper Making, containing three lectures which he wrote on journalism, was published in 1900. With George Ripley he edited The New American Cyclopaedia (15 vols., 1857-1863), reissued as the American Cyclopaedia in 1873-1876. He had excellent taste in the fine arts and edited an anthology, The Household Book of Poetry (1857). He was a very good linguist, published several versions from the German, and read the Romance and Scandinavian languages; he was an art connoisseur and left a remarkable collection of Chinese porcelain. Dana’s Reminiscences of the Civil War was published in 1898, as was his Eastern Journeys, Notes of Travel. He also edited a campaign Life of U. S. Grant, published over his name and that of General James H. Wilson in 1868.

DANA, CHARLES ANDERSON (1819-1897), American journalist, was born in Hinsdale, New Hampshire, on August 8, 1819. At twelve, he became a clerk in his uncle’s general store in Buffalo, which went bankrupt in 1837. In 1839, he started at Harvard, but due to vision problems in 1841, he had to leave college and give up his plans to enter the ministry and study in Germany. From September 1841 to March 1846, he lived at Brook Farm, where he became one of the farm's trustees, was head waiter when it became a Fourierite community, and managed the community’s finances when its buildings burned down in 1846. He had previously written for (and managed) the Harbinger, the Brook Farm newspaper, and had contributed as early as 1844 to the Boston Chronotype. In 1847, he joined the staff of the New York Tribune, and in 1848 he wrote letters from Europe to the paper and other publications about the revolutionary movements of that year. After returning to the Tribune in 1849, he became its managing editor and actively supported the anti-slavery cause, seemingly shaping the paper’s stance at a time when Greeley was uncertain. In 1862, the board of managers of the Tribune asked for his resignation, apparently due to significant personality clashes with Greeley. Secretary of War Stanton quickly appointed him a special investigative agent for the War Department; in this role, Dana uncovered fraud involving quartermasters and contractors, and as the “eyes of the administration,” as Lincoln referred to him, he spent considerable time at the front, sending Stanton regular updates about the abilities and strategies of various generals; he participated in the Vicksburg campaign and was present at Chickamauga and Chattanooga, pushing for General Grant to be given overall command of all the armies in the field. Dana served as second assistant secretary of war in 1864-1865, and during 1865-1866, he ran the newly established and unsuccessful Chicago Republican. He became the editor and part-owner of the New York Sun in 1868, overseeing it until his death at Glen Cove, Long Island, New York, 792 on October 17, 1897. Under Dana’s leadership, the Sun opposed the impeachment of President Johnson; supported Grant for the presidency in 1868; criticized Grant during his presidency; and in 1872 was involved in the Liberal Republican movement and advocated for Greeley’s nomination. It backed Tilden, the Democratic candidate for president in 1876, opposed the Electoral Commission, and repeatedly referred to Hayes as the “fraud president.” In 1884, it supported Benjamin F. Butler, the candidate from the Greenback-Labor and Anti-Monopolist parties, for president, opposing Blaine (Republican) and even more vigorously Cleveland (Democrat); it endorsed Cleveland while opposing Harrison in 1888, despite previously harshly criticizing Cleveland’s first term, and was ready to critique almost every aspect of his second term, except for federal intervention during the Pullman strike of 1894; in 1896, regarding the free-silver debate, it opposed Bryan, the Democratic presidential candidate. Dana’s writing style became the standard for the Sun—simple, strong, clear, and “boiled down.” The Art of Newspaper Making, a collection of three lectures he wrote on journalism, was published in 1900. He co-edited The New American Cyclopaedia (15 vols., 1857-1863) with George Ripley, which was reissued as the American Cyclopaedia in 1873-1876. He had an excellent appreciation for the fine arts and edited an anthology titled The Household Book of Poetry (1857). He was a skilled linguist, translated several works from German, and read Romance and Scandinavian languages; he was also an art enthusiast and amassed an impressive collection of Chinese porcelain. Dana’s Reminiscences of the Civil War was published in 1898, along with his Eastern Journeys, Notes of Travel. He also edited a campaign Life of U. S. Grant, published under his name and that of General James H. Wilson in 1868.

See James Wilson, The Life of Charles A. Dana (New York, 1907).

See James Wilson, The Life of Charles A. Dana (New York, 1907).


DANA, FRANCIS (1743-1811), American jurist, was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts, on the 13th of June 1743. He was the son of Richard Dana (1699-1772), a leader of the Massachusetts provincial bar, and a vigorous advocate of colonial rights in the pre-revolutionary period. Francis Dana graduated at Harvard in 1762, was admitted to the bar in 1767, and, being an opponent of the British colonial policy, became a leader of the Sons of Liberty, and in 1774 was a member of the first provincial congress of Massachusetts. During a two years’ visit to England he sought earnestly to gain friends to his colony’s cause, but returned to Boston in April 1776 convinced that a friendly settlement of the dispute was impossible. He was a member of the Massachusetts executive council from 1776 to 1780, and a delegate to the Continental Congress from 1776 to 1778. As a member of the latter body he became chairman in January 1778 of the committee appointed to visit Washington at Valley Forge, and confer with him concerning the reorganization of the army. This committee spent about three months in camp, and assisted Washington in preparing the plan of reorganization which Congress in the main adopted. In this year he was also a member of a committee to consider Lord North’s offer of conciliation, which he vigorously opposed. In the autumn of 1779 he was appointed secretary to John Adams, who had been selected as minister plenipotentiary to negotiate treaties of peace and commerce with Great Britain, and in December 1780 he was appointed diplomatic representative to the Russian government. He remained at St Petersburg from 1781 to 1783, but was never formally received by the empress Catherine. In February 1784 he was again chosen a delegate to Congress, and in January 1785 he became a justice of the Massachusetts supreme court. He was chief justice of this court from 1791 to 1806, and presided with ability and rare distinction. He was an earnest advocate of the adoption of the Federal constitution, was a member of the Massachusetts convention which ratified that instrument, and was one of the most influential advisers of the leaders of the Federalist party. His tastes were scholarly, and he was one of the founders of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He died at Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 25th of April 1811.

DANA, FRANCIS (1743-1811), American jurist, was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts, on June 13, 1743. He was the son of Richard Dana (1699-1772), a prominent lawyer in Massachusetts and a strong advocate for colonial rights during the pre-revolutionary period. Francis Dana graduated from Harvard in 1762, was admitted to the bar in 1767, and, opposing British colonial policy, became a leader of the Sons of Liberty. In 1774, he was a member of the first provincial congress of Massachusetts. During a two-year visit to England, he worked hard to gain support for his colony’s cause but returned to Boston in April 1776 convinced that a friendly resolution to the dispute was impossible. He served on the Massachusetts executive council from 1776 to 1780 and was a delegate to the Continental Congress from 1776 to 1778. As a member of the latter, he became chairman in January 1778 of the committee that visited Washington at Valley Forge to discuss the reorganization of the army. This committee spent about three months in camp, helping Washington prepare the plan for reorganization that Congress largely adopted. That year, he was also part of a committee that considered Lord North’s offer of reconciliation, which he strongly opposed. In the fall of 1779, he was appointed secretary to John Adams, who had been chosen as minister plenipotentiary to negotiate peace and commerce treaties with Great Britain, and in December 1780, he was appointed diplomatic representative to the Russian government. He stayed in St. Petersburg from 1781 to 1783 but was never formally received by Empress Catherine. In February 1784, he was again selected as a delegate to Congress, and in January 1785, he became a justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. He served as chief justice of this court from 1791 to 1806, demonstrating skill and distinguished leadership. He was a strong supporter of the adoption of the Federal Constitution, was a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the document, and was one of the most influential advisers to the leaders of the Federalist party. His interests were scholarly, and he was one of the founders of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He died in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on April 25, 1811.

His son, Richard Henry Dana (1787-1879), was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 15th of November 1787. He was educated at Harvard in the class of 1808. Subsequently he studied law and in 1811 was admitted to practice. But all other interests were early subordinated to his love of literature, to which the greater part of his long life was devoted. He became in 1814 a member of a literary society in Cambridge, known as the Anthology Club. This club began the publication of a monthly magazine, The Monthly Anthology, which gave way in 1815 to The North American Review. In the editorial control of this periodical he was associated with Jared Sparks and Edward T. Channing (1790-1856) until 1821, contributing essays and criticisms which attracted wide attention. In 1821-1822 he edited in New York a short-lived literary magazine, The Idle Man. He published his first volume of Poems in 1827, and in 1833 appeared his Poems and Prose Writings, republished in 1850 in two volumes, in which were included practically all of his poems and of his prose contributions to periodical literature. Although the bulk of his published writings was not large, his influence on American literature during the first half of the 19th century was surpassed by that of few of his contemporaries.

His son, Richard Henry Dana Jr. (1787-1879), was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on November 15, 1787. He was educated at Harvard, graduating in the class of 1808. Afterward, he studied law and was admitted to practice in 1811. However, his passion for literature quickly took precedence over everything else, and he dedicated most of his long life to it. In 1814, he became a member of a literary group in Cambridge called the Anthology Club. This club started publishing a monthly magazine, The Monthly Anthology, which transitioned in 1815 to The North American Review. He worked alongside Jared Sparks and Edward T. Channing (1790-1856) on the editorial team of this publication until 1821, contributing essays and critiques that gained a lot of attention. From 1821 to 1822, he edited a short-lived literary magazine in New York called The Idle Man. His first volume of Poems was published in 1827, and in 1833, he released Poems and Prose Writings, which was republished in 1850 in two volumes. This collection included almost all of his poems and prose contributions to periodical literature. Although the amount of his published work was relatively small, his impact on American literature in the first half of the 19th century was rivaled by only a few of his contemporaries.

Richard Henry Dana (1815-1882), son of the last-mentioned, was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 1st of August 1815. He entered Harvard in the class of 1835, but at the beginning of his junior year an illness affecting his sight necessitated a suspension of his college work, and in August 1834 he shipped before the mast for California, returning in September 1836. The rough experience of this voyage did more than endow him with renewed health; it changed him from a dreamy, sensitive boy, hereditarily disinclined to any sort of active career, into a self-reliant, energetic man, with broad interests and keen sympathies. He re-entered Harvard in December 1836 and graduated in June 1837. He was a student at the Harvard law school from 1837 to 1840, and from January 1839 to February 1840 he was also an instructor in elocution in the college. In 1840 the notes of his sea-trip were published under the title Two Years Before the Mast. The book attained an almost unprecedented popularity both in America and in Europe, where it was translated into several languages; and it came to be considered a classic. Immediately after the appearance of this book Dana began the practice of law, which brought him a large number of maritime cases. In 1841 he published The Seaman’s Friend, republished in England as The Seaman’s Manual, which was long the highest authority on the legal rights and duties of seamen. After gaining recognition as one of the most prominent members of the Suffolk bar, he became associated in 1848 with the Free Soil movement, and took a prominent part in the Buffalo convention of that year. This step, which caused him to be ostracized for a time from the Boston circles in which he had been reared, brought him the cases of the fugitive slaves, Shadrach, Sims and Burns, and of the rescuers of Shadrach. On the night following the surrender of Burns (May 1854) Dana was brutally assaulted on the Boston streets. In 1853 he took a prominent part in the state constitutional convention. He allied himself with the Republican party on its organization, but his inborn dislike for political manœuvring prevented his ever becoming prominent in its councils. In 1857 he became a regular attendant at the meetings of the famous Boston Saturday Club, to the members of which he dedicated his account of a vacation trip, To Cuba and Back (1857). He returned to America from a trip round the world in time to participate in the presidential campaign of 1860, and after Lincoln’s inauguration he was appointed United States district attorney for Massachusetts. In this office in 1863 he won before the Supreme Court of the United States the famous prize case of the “Amy Warwick,” on the decision in which depended the right of the government to blockade the Confederate ports, without giving the Confederate States an international status as belligerents. He brought out in 1865 an edition of Wheaton’s International Law, his notes constituting a most learned and valuable authority on international law and its bearings on American history and diplomacy; but immediately after its publication Dana was charged by the editor of two earlier editions, William Beach Lawrence, with infringing his copyright, and was involved in litigation which was continued 793 for thirteen years. In such minor matters as arrangement of notes and verification of citations the court found against Dana, but in the main Dana’s notes were vastly different from Lawrence’s. In 1865 Dana declined an appointment as a United States district judge. During the Reconstruction period he favoured the congressional plan rather than that of President Johnson, and on this account resigned the district-attorneyship. In 1867-1868 he was a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and in 1867 was retained with William M. Evarts to prosecute Jefferson Davis, whose admission to bail he counselled. In 1877 he was one of the counsel for the United States before the commission which in accordance with the treaty of Washington met at Halifax, N.S., to arbitrate the fisheries question between the United States and Great Britain. In 1878 he gave up his law practice and devoted the rest of his life to study and travel. He died in Rome, Italy, on the 9th of January 1882.

Richard Henry Dana (1815-1882), the son of the previously mentioned, was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on August 1, 1815. He started at Harvard in the class of 1835, but at the beginning of his junior year, an illness affecting his eyesight forced him to pause his college studies. In August 1834, he sailed to California as a common sailor, returning in September 1836. The rough experience of this journey did more than restore his health; it transformed him from a dreamy, sensitive boy, who was not inclined toward any active career, into a self-reliant, energetic man with broad interests and deep empathy. He re-enrolled at Harvard in December 1836 and graduated in June 1837. He attended Harvard Law School from 1837 to 1840, and from January 1839 to February 1840, he was also an instructor in elocution at the college. In 1840, he published the notes from his sea voyage under the title Two Years Before the Mast. The book gained unprecedented popularity in both America and Europe, where it was translated into several languages, and it came to be regarded as a classic. Soon after the book's release, Dana began practicing law, which led him to handle many maritime cases. In 1841, he published The Seaman’s Friend, later republished in England as The Seaman’s Manual, which became a key reference on the legal rights and responsibilities of sailors. After establishing himself as a prominent member of the Suffolk bar, he became involved with the Free Soil movement in 1848 and played a significant role in that year's Buffalo convention. This decision caused him to be socially ostracized for a time from the Boston circles in which he had been raised, but it also brought him the cases of fugitive slaves Shadrach, Sims, and Burns, as well as the rescuers of Shadrach. The night after Burns was surrendered (May 1854), Dana was violently attacked on the streets of Boston. In 1853, he was an active participant in the state constitutional convention. He aligned himself with the Republican Party upon its formation, but his natural aversion to political maneuvering kept him from becoming a major figure in its leadership. In 1857, he became a regular attendee at the famous Boston Saturday Club meetings, to whom he dedicated his account of a vacation trip, To Cuba and Back (1857). He returned to America from a round-the-world trip just in time to participate in the 1860 presidential campaign, and after Lincoln's inauguration, he was appointed U.S. District Attorney for Massachusetts. In this position, in 1863, he won the famous Supreme Court case of the “Amy Warwick,” which determined the government's right to blockade Confederate ports without granting the Confederate States official international status. He published an edition of Wheaton’s International Law in 1865, with his notes forming a substantial and valuable source on international law and its implications in American history and diplomacy. However, shortly after its publication, Dana was accused by the editor of the two earlier editions, William Beach Lawrence, of copyright infringement, leading to a legal battle that lasted for thirteen years. In certain minor matters like note arrangement and citation verification, the court ruled against Dana, but in general, Dana's notes were significantly different from Lawrence’s. In 1865, Dana turned down an appointment as a U.S. District Judge. During the Reconstruction era, he supported the congressional plan over President Johnson’s, which led him to resign from the District Attorney position. From 1867 to 1868, he was a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and in 1867, he was retained with William M. Evarts to prosecute Jefferson Davis, for whom he recommended admitting to bail. In 1877, he acted as counsel for the United States before the commission that met in Halifax, N.S., in accordance with the Treaty of Washington to arbitrate the fisheries dispute between the United States and Great Britain. In 1878, he retired from his legal practice to devote the rest of his life to study and travel. He died in Rome, Italy, on January 9, 1882.

See Charles Francis Adams, Richard Henry Dana: a Biography (2 vols., Boston, Mass., 1891).

See Charles Francis Adams, Richard Henry Dana: a Biography (2 vols., Boston, MA, 1891).


DANA, JAMES DWIGHT (1813-1895), American geologist, mineralogist and zoologist, was born in Utica, New York, on the 12th of February 1813. He early displayed a taste for science, which had been fostered by Fay Edgerton, a teacher in the Utica high school, and in 1830 he entered Yale College, in order to study under Benjamin Silliman the elder. Graduating in 1833, for the next two years he was teacher of mathematics to midshipmen in the navy, and sailed to the Mediterranean while engaged in his duties. In 1836-1837 he was assistant to Professor Silliman in the chemical laboratory at Yale, and then, for four years, acted as mineralogist and geologist of a United States exploring expedition, commanded by Captain Charles Wilkes, in the Pacific ocean (see Wilkes, Charles). His labours in preparing the reports of his explorations occupied parts of thirteen years after his return to America in 1842. In 1844 he again became a resident of New Haven, married the daughter of Professor Silliman, and in 1850, on the resignation of the latter, was appointed Silliman Professor of Natural History and Geology in Yale College, a position which he held till 1892. In 1846 he became joint editor and during the later years of his life he was chief editor of the American Journal of Science and Arts (founded in 1818 by Benjamin Silliman), to which he was a constant contributor, principally of articles on geology and mineralogy. A bibliographical list of his writings shows 214 titles of books and papers, beginning in 1835 with a paper on the conditions of Vesuvius in 1834, and ending with the fourth revised edition (finished in February 1895) of his Manual of Geology. His reports on Zoophytes, on the Geology of the Pacific Area, and on Crustacea, summarizing his work on the Wilkes expedition, appeared in 1846, 1849 and 1852-1854, in quarto volumes, with copiously illustrated atlases; but as these were issued in small numbers, his reputation more largely rests upon his System of Mineralogy (1837 and many later editions in 1892); Manual of Geology (1862; ed. 4, 1895); Manual of Mineralogy (1848), afterwards entitled Manual of Mineralogy and Lithology (ed. 4, 1887); and Corals and Coral Islands (1872; ed. 2, 1890). In 1887 Dana revisited the Hawaiian Islands, and the results of his further investigations were published in a quarto volume in 1890, entitled Characteristics of Volcanoes. By the Royal Society of London he was awarded the Copley medal in 1877; and by the Geological Society the Wollaston medal in 1874. His powers of work were extraordinary, and in his 82nd year he was occupied in preparing a new edition of his Manual of Geology, the 4th edition being issued in 1895. He died on the 14th of April 1895.

DANA, JAMES DWIGHT (1813-1895), was an American geologist, mineralogist, and zoologist, born in Utica, New York, on February 12, 1813. He showed an early interest in science, encouraged by Fay Edgerton, a teacher at the Utica high school. In 1830, he enrolled at Yale College to study under Benjamin Silliman the elder. After graduating in 1833, he taught mathematics to midshipmen in the navy for the next two years and sailed to the Mediterranean during this time. From 1836 to 1837, he worked as an assistant to Professor Silliman in Yale's chemical laboratory, and then for four years, he served as a mineralogist and geologist for a United States exploring expedition led by Captain Charles Wilkes in the Pacific Ocean (see Wilkes, Charles). His work on the reports of his explorations took up parts of thirteen years after he returned to America in 1842. In 1844, he moved back to New Haven, married Professor Silliman's daughter, and in 1850, upon Silliman's resignation, he was appointed Silliman Professor of Natural History and Geology at Yale College, a role he held until 1892. In 1846, he became a joint editor and later the chief editor of the American Journal of Science and Arts (founded in 1818 by Benjamin Silliman), where he regularly contributed articles mainly on geology and mineralogy. A bibliographical list of his writings shows 214 titles of books and papers, starting in 1835 with a paper on the conditions of Vesuvius in 1834, and ending with the fourth revised edition (completed in February 1895) of his Manual of Geology. His reports on Zoophytes, the Geology of the Pacific Area, and Crustacea, summarizing his work from the Wilkes expedition, were published in 1846, 1849, and 1852-1854, in quarto volumes with detailed illustrated atlases; however, as these were printed in limited numbers, his reputation mainly comes from his System of Mineralogy (1837 and many later editions in 1892); Manual of Geology (1862; ed. 4, 1895); Manual of Mineralogy (1848), later titled Manual of Mineralogy and Lithology (ed. 4, 1887); and Corals and Coral Islands (1872; ed. 2, 1890). In 1887, Dana revisited the Hawaiian Islands, and the findings from his additional research were published in a quarto volume in 1890, titled Characteristics of Volcanoes. He received the Copley Medal from the Royal Society of London in 1877 and the Wollaston Medal from the Geological Society in 1874. His work ethic was remarkable, and at the age of 82, he was busy preparing a new edition of his Manual of Geology, with the fourth edition being published in 1895. He died on April 14, 1895.

His son Edward Salisbury Dana, born at New Haven on the 16th of November 1849, is author of A Textbook of Mineralogy (1877; new ed. 1898) and a Text Book of Elementary Mechanics (1881). In 1879-80 he was professor of natural philosophy and then became professor of physics at Yale.

His son Edward Salisbury Dana, born in New Haven on November 16, 1849, wrote A Textbook of Mineralogy (1877; new ed. 1898) and a Text Book of Elementary Mechanics (1881). From 1879 to 1880, he was a professor of natural philosophy and then became a professor of physics at Yale.

See Life of J. D. Dana, by Daniel C. Gilman (1899).

See Life of J. D. Dana, by Daniel C. Gilman (1899).


DANAE, in Greek legend, daughter of Acrisius, king of Argos. Her father, having been warned by an oracle that she would bear a son by whom he would be slain, confined Danae in a brazen tower. But Zeus descended to her in a shower of gold, and she gave birth to Perseus, whereupon Acrisius placed her and her infant in a wooden box and threw them into the sea. They were finally driven ashore on the island of Seriphus, where they were picked up by a fisherman named Dictys. His brother Polydectes, who was king of the island, fell in love with Danae and married her. According to another story, her son Perseus, on his return with the head of Medusa, finding his mother persecuted by Polydectes, turned him into stone, and took Danae back with him to Argos. Latin legend represented her as landing on the coast of Latium and marrying Pilumnus or Picumnus, from whom Turnus, king of the Rutulians, was descended. Danae formed the subject of tragedies by Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Livius Andronicus and Naevius. She is the personification of the earth suffering from drought, on which the fertilizing rain descends from heaven.

DANAE, in Greek mythology, is the daughter of Acrisius, the king of Argos. Her father, warned by an oracle that she would have a son who would kill him, locked Danae in a bronze tower. However, Zeus came to her in a shower of gold, and she had a son named Perseus. Afterward, Acrisius put her and the baby in a wooden box and threw them into the sea. They eventually washed up on the island of Seriphus, where a fisherman named Dictys rescued them. His brother Polydectes, the king of the island, fell in love with Danae and married her. In another version of the story, her son Perseus, returning with Medusa’s head, found his mother being mistreated by Polydectes, turned him to stone, and took Danae back to Argos. Latin legends depict her arriving on the coast of Latium and marrying Pilumnus or Picumnus, from whom Turnus, the king of the Rutulians, is descended. Danae was the subject of tragedies by Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Livius Andronicus, and Naevius. She represents the earth suffering from drought, receiving the nourishing rain from the heavens.

Apollodorus ii. 4; Sophocles, Antigone, 944; Horace, Odes, iii. 16; Virgil, Aeneid, vii. 410. See also P. Schwarz, De Fabula Danaeia (1881).

Apollodorus ii. 4; Sophocles, Antigone, 944; Horace, Odes, iii. 16; Virgil, Aeneid, vii. 410. See also P. Schwarz, De Fabula Danaeia (1881).


DANAO, a town of the province of Cebú, island of Cebú, Philippine Islands, on the E. coast, at the mouth of the Danao river, 17 m. N.N.E. of Cebú, the capital. Pop. (1903) 16,173. Danao has a comparatively cool and healthy climate, is the centre of a rich agricultural region producing rice, Indian corn, sugar, copra and cacao, and coal is mined in the vicinity. The language is Cebú-Visayan.

DANAO, is a town in the province of Cebu, on the island of Cebu in the Philippines, located on the east coast at the mouth of the Danao River, 17 miles north-northeast of Cebu City, the capital. As of 1903, the population was 16,173. Danao has a relatively cool and healthy climate and is the center of a rich agricultural area that produces rice, corn, sugar, copra, and cacao, and coal is mined nearby. The local language is Cebuano.


DANAUS, in Greek legend, son of Belus, king of Egypt, and twin-brother of Aegyptus. He was born at Chemmis (Panopolis) in Egypt, but having been driven out by his brother he fled with his fifty daughters to Argos, the home of his ancestress Io. Here he became king and taught the inhabitants of the country to dig wells. In the meantime the fifty sons of Aegyptus arrived in Argos, and Danaus was obliged to consent to their marriage with his daughters. But to each of these he gave a knife with injunctions to slay her husband on the marriage night. They all obeyed except Hyperm(n)estra, who spared Lynceus. She was brought to trial by her father, acquitted and afterwards married to her lover. Being unable to find suitors for the other daughters, Danaus offered them in marriage to the youths of the district who proved themselves victorious in racing contests (Pindar, Pythia, ix. 117). According to another story, Lynceus slew Danaus and his daughters and seized the throne of Argos (schol. on Euripides, Hecuba, 886). By way of expiation for their crime the Danaïdes were condemned to the endless task of filling with water a vessel which had no bottom. This punishment, originally inflicted on those who neglected certain mystic rites, was transferred to those who, like the Danaïdes, despised the mystic rite of marriage; cf. the water-bearing figure (λουτροφόρος) on the grave of unmarried persons. The murder of the sons of Aegyptus by their wives is supposed to represent the drying up of the rivers and springs of Argolis in summer by the agency of the nymphs.

DANAUS, in Greek mythology, was the son of Belus, the king of Egypt, and the twin brother of Aegyptus. He was born in Chemmis (Panopolis) in Egypt, but after being forced out by his brother, he fled with his fifty daughters to Argos, the homeland of his ancestor Io. There, he became king and taught the locals how to dig wells. Meanwhile, the fifty sons of Aegyptus arrived in Argos, and Danaus had no choice but to agree to their marriage with his daughters. However, he provided each daughter with a knife and instructed her to kill her husband on their wedding night. They all followed his orders except for Hyperm(n)estra, who spared Lynceus. She was put on trial by her father, found not guilty, and later married her lover. Unable to find husbands for the other daughters, Danaus offered them in marriage to the local youths who won racing contests (Pindar, Pythia, ix. 117). According to another account, Lynceus killed Danaus and his daughters and took the throne of Argos (schol. on Euripides, Hecuba, 886). As punishment for their crime, the Danaïdes were condemned to the never-ending task of filling a bottomless vessel with water. This punishment, originally given to those who neglected specific mystical rites, was also applied to those like the Danaïdes who disdained the sacred rite of marriage; see the water-bearing figure (bathtub) on the graves of unmarried individuals. The murder of the sons of Aegyptus by their wives is said to symbolize the drying up of the rivers and springs of Argolis during the summer, caused by the nymphs.

Apollodorus ii. 1; Horace, Odes, iii. 11; O. Waser, in Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, ii. Heft 1, 1899; articles in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie and W. H. Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie; Campbell Bonner, in Harvard Studies, xiii. (1902).

Apollodorus ii. 1; Horace, Odes, iii. 11; O. Waser, in Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, ii. Heft 1, 1899; articles in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie and W. H. Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie; Campbell Bonner, in Harvard Studies, xiii. (1902).


DANBURITE, a rare mineral species consisting of calcium and boron orthosilicate, CaB2(SiO4)2, crystallizing in the orthorhombic system. It was discovered by C.U. Shepard in 1839 at Danbury, Connecticut, U.S.A., and named by him after this locality. The crystals are prismatic in habit, and closely resemble topaz in form and interfacial angles. There is an imperfect cleavage parallel to the basal plane. Crystals are transparent to translucent, and colourless to pale yellow; hardness 7; specific gravity 3.0. At Danbury the mineral occurs with microcline and oligoclase embedded in dolomite. Large crystals, reaching 4 in. in length, have been found with calcite in veins traversing granite at Russell in St Lawrence county, New York. Smaller but well-developed crystals have been found on gneiss at Mt. Scopi and Petersthal (the valley of the Vals Rhine) in Switzerland. Splendid crystals have recently been obtained from Japan.

DANBURITE, is a rare mineral made of calcium and boron orthosilicate, CaB2(SiO4)2, that crystallizes in the orthorhombic system. It was discovered by C.U. Shepard in 1839 in Danbury, Connecticut, USA, and named after this locality. The crystals have a prismatic shape and closely resemble topaz in form and interfacial angles. There is an imperfect cleavage along the basal plane. The crystals are transparent to translucent and range from colorless to pale yellow; they have a hardness of 7 and a specific gravity of 3.0. In Danbury, the mineral is found alongside microcline and oligoclase in dolomite. Large crystals, up to 4 inches long, have been found with calcite in veins running through granite at Russell in St. Lawrence County, New York. Smaller but well-formed crystals have been located on gneiss at Mt. Scopi and Petersthal (in the Vals Rhine valley) in Switzerland. Beautiful crystals have also recently been sourced from Japan.


DANBURY, a city and one of the county-seats of Fairfield county, Connecticut, U.S.A., in Danbury township, in the 794 south-west part of the state, on the Still river, a tributary of the Housatonic. Pop. (1890) 16,552; (1900) 16,537 (3702 foreign-born); (1910) 20,234. In 1900 the population of the township, including that of the city, was 19,474, and in 1910, 23,502. Danbury is served by three divisions of the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway; by the Danbury & Harlem electric railway, which connects at Goldens Bridge, New York, with the Harlem division of the New York Central; and by an electric line to Bethel, Connecticut. Lake Kenosia, about 2½ m. from the centre of the city, is a pleasure resort. A state normal school was opened in Danbury in 1904, and there is a home for destitute and homeless children under private (unsectarian) control. The city has good water-power, and the municipality owns the water works. The principal industry is the manufacture of felt hats, begun in 1780, and in 1905 engaging about thirty factories, with a product for the year valued at $5,798,107 (71.9% of the value of all the factory products of the city, and 15.8% of the value of all the felt hats produced in the United States). The city ranked first among the cities of the country in this industry in 1900 and second in 1905, and in 1905 no other city showed so high a degree of specialization in it. Silver-plated ware (mostly manufactured by Rogers Bros.) is another important product. At Danbury is held annually the well-known agricultural Danbury Fair. The township was settled in 1684 by emigrants from Norwalk, and received its present name in 1687. When the War of Independence opened, Enoch Crosby, believed to be the original of Harvey Birch, the hero of J. F. Cooper’s The Spy, was a resident of Danbury. A depot of military supplies was established in the village of Danbury in 1776; in April 1777 Governor William Tryon, of New York, raided the place, destroying the military stores and considerable private property. During his retreat he was attacked (April 26th) at Ridgefield (about 9 m. south by east of Danbury) by the Americans under General David Wooster (1710-1777), who was fatally wounded in the conflict (being succeeded by General Benedict Arnold), and to whose memory a monument was erected in Danbury in 1854. Danbury was chartered as a borough in 1832 and as a city in 1880. In 1870 the Danbury News was established by the consolidation of the Jeffersonian and the Times, by James Montgomery Bailey (1841-1894), from 1865 to 1870 proprietor of the Times. He wrote for the News humorous sketches, which made him and the paper famous, Bailey being known as the “Danbury News Man”; among his books are Life in Danbury (1873), The Danbury News Man’s Almanac (1873), They All Do It (1877), England from a Back Window (1878), Mr Philip’s Goneness (1879), The Danbury Boom (1880), and History of Danbury (1896).

DANBURY, is a city and one of the county seats of Fairfield County, Connecticut, U.S.A., located in Danbury Township, in the 794 southwestern part of the state, on the Still River, a tributary of the Housatonic. Population (1890) 16,552; (1900) 16,537 (3,702 foreign-born); (1910) 20,234. In 1900, the population of the township, including the city, was 19,474, and in 1910, 23,502. Danbury is served by three divisions of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railway; by the Danbury & Harlem Electric Railway, which connects at Goldens Bridge, New York, with the Harlem division of the New York Central; and by an electric line to Bethel, Connecticut. Lake Kenosia, about 2½ miles from the center of the city, is a popular resort. A state normal school opened in Danbury in 1904, and there is a home for destitute and homeless children under private (nonsectarian) management. The city has good water power, and the municipality owns the waterworks. The main industry is the manufacture of felt hats, which began in 1780, employing about thirty factories in 1905, with a production value for the year of $5,798,107 (71.9% of the value of all factory products in the city and 15.8% of the total value of all felt hats produced in the United States). The city ranked first among American cities in this industry in 1900 and second in 1905, with no other city showing such high specialization in it that year. Silver-plated ware (mostly made by Rogers Bros.) is another significant product. Danbury hosts the well-known annual agricultural Danbury Fair. The township was settled in 1684 by migrants from Norwalk and received its current name in 1687. During the War of Independence, Enoch Crosby, believed to be the inspiration for Harvey Birch, the hero of J. F. Cooper’s The Spy, was a resident of Danbury. A military supply depot was established in the village of Danbury in 1776; in April 1777, Governor William Tryon of New York raided the area, destroying military supplies and significant private property. During his retreat, he was attacked on April 26th at Ridgefield (about 9 miles southeast of Danbury) by American forces under General David Wooster (1710-1777), who was fatally wounded in the confrontation (succeeded by General Benedict Arnold), and in his memory, a monument was erected in Danbury in 1854. Danbury was incorporated as a borough in 1832 and as a city in 1880. In 1870, the Danbury News was established through the merger of the Jeffersonian and the Times by James Montgomery Bailey (1841-1894), who was the proprietor of the Times from 1865 to 1870. He wrote humorous sketches for the News, which made him and the paper famous, earning him the title “Danbury News Man”; among his works are Life in Danbury (1873), The Danbury News Man’s Almanac (1873), They All Do It (1877), England from a Back Window (1878), Mr Philip’s Goneness (1879), The Danbury Boom (1880), and History of Danbury (1896).


DANBY, FRANCIS (1793-1861), English painter, was born in the south of Ireland on the 16th of November 1793. His father farmed a small property he owned near Wexford, but his death caused the family to remove to Dublin, while Francis was still a schoolboy. He began to practice drawing at the Royal Dublin Society’s schools; and under an erratic young artist named O’Connor he began painting landscape. Danby also made acquaintance with George Petrie, and all three left for London together in 1813. This expedition, undertaken with very inadequate funds, quickly came to an end, and they had to get home again by walking. At Bristol they made a pause, and Danby, finding he could get trifling sums for water-colour drawings, remained there working diligently and sending to the London exhibitions pictures of importance. There his large pictures in oil quickly attracted attention. “The Upas Tree” (1820) and “The Delivery of the Israelites” (1825) brought him his election as an associate of the Royal Academy. He left Bristol for London, and in 1828 exhibited his “Opening of the Sixth Seal” at the British Institution, receiving from that body a prize of 200 guineas; and this picture was followed by two others from the Apocalypse. He suddenly left London, declaring that he would never live there again, and that the Academy, instead of aiding him, had, somehow or other, used him badly. Some insurmountable domestic difficulty overtook him also, and for eleven or twelve years he lived on the Lake of Geneva, a Bohemian with boat-building fancies, painting only now and then. He returned to England in 1841, when his sons, James and Thomas, both artists, were growing up. Other pictures by him were “The Golden Age” and “The Evening Gun,” the first begun before he left England, the second painted after his return; he had taken up his abode at Exmouth, where he died on the 9th of February 1861.

DANBY, FRANCIS (1793-1861), English painter, was born in the south of Ireland on November 16, 1793. His father ran a small farm near Wexford, but after his death, the family moved to Dublin while Francis was still in school. He started practicing drawing at the Royal Dublin Society’s schools, and under an unpredictable young artist named O’Connor, he began painting landscapes. Danby also met George Petrie, and the three of them left for London together in 1813. This trip, made with very little money, ended quickly, forcing them to walk back home. They paused in Bristol, where Danby discovered he could earn small amounts from watercolor drawings, so he decided to stay there, working hard and sending significant paintings to London exhibitions. His large oil paintings gained attention there. “The Upas Tree” (1820) and “The Delivery of the Israelites” (1825) led to his election as an associate of the Royal Academy. He then moved to London, where in 1828 he exhibited “Opening of the Sixth Seal” at the British Institution, winning a prize of 200 guineas; this was followed by two other works inspired by the Apocalypse. He abruptly left London, claiming he would never live there again, feeling that the Academy had mistreated him. He also faced some overwhelming personal issues, and for about eleven or twelve years, he lived by Lake Geneva, embracing a bohemian lifestyle with an interest in boat building, painting only occasionally. He returned to England in 1841, as his sons, James and Thomas, both artists, were growing up. Other notable works include “The Golden Age” and “The Evening Gun,” the first started before he left England and the second painted after his return. He settled in Exmouth, where he passed away on February 9, 1861.


DANCE, the name of an English family distinguished in architecture, art and the drama. George Dance, the elder (1700-1768), obtained the appointment of architect to the city of London, and designed the Mansion House (1739); the churches of St Botolph, Aldgate (1741), St Luke’s, Old Street; St Leonard, Shoreditch; the old excise office; Broad Street; and other public works of importance. He died on the 8th of February 1768. His eldest son, James Dance (1722-1744), was born on the 17th of March 1722, and educated at the Merchant Taylors’ School and St John’s College, Oxford, which he left before graduating. He took the name of Love, and became an actor and playwright of no great merit. In the former capacity he was for twelve years connected with Drury Lane theatre. He wrote “an heroic poem” on Cricket, about 1740, and a volume of Poems on Several Occasions (1754), and a number of comedies—the earliest Pamela (1742).

DANCE, is the name of an English family known for their contributions to architecture, art, and theater. George Dance, the elder (1700-1768), was appointed as the architect for the city of London and designed the Mansion House (1739); as well as the churches of St Botolph, Aldgate (1741), St Luke’s, Old Street; St Leonard, Shoreditch; the old excise office; Broad Street; and other significant public works. He passed away on February 8, 1768. His eldest son, James Dance (1722-1744), was born on March 17, 1722, and educated at Merchant Taylors’ School and St John’s College, Oxford, where he left before graduating. He adopted the name Love and became an actor and playwright, though not very accomplished. In acting, he was associated with Drury Lane theatre for twelve years. He wrote “an heroic poem” on Cricket around 1740, a volume of Poems on Several Occasions (1754), and several comedies, the earliest being Pamela (1742).

George Dance’s third son, Sir Nathaniel Dance-Holland, Bart. (1735-1811), was born on the 18th of May 1735, and studied art under Francis Hayman, and in Italy, where he met Angelica Kauffmann, to whom he was devotedly and hopelessly attached. From Rome he sent home “Dido and Aeneas” (1763), and he continued to paint occasional historical pictures of the same quasi-classic kind throughout his career. On his return to England he took up portrait-painting with great success, and contributed to the first exhibition of the Royal Academy, of which he was a foundation member, full-length portraits of George III. and his queen. These, and his portraits of Captain Cook and of Garrick as Richard III., engraved by Dixon, are his best-known works. Himself a rich man, in 1790 he married a widow with £15,000 a year, dropped his profession, and became M.P. for East Grinstead, taking the additional name of Holland. He was made a baronet in 1800. He died on the 15th of October 1811, leaving a fortune of £200,000.

George Dance’s third son, Sir Nathaniel Dance-Holland, Bart. (1735-1811), was born on May 18, 1735, and studied art under Francis Hayman, as well as in Italy, where he met Angelica Kauffmann, to whom he was deeply and hopelessly attached. From Rome, he sent back “Dido and Aeneas” (1763), and throughout his career, he continued to paint occasional historical pictures in a similar quasi-classic style. After returning to England, he found great success in portrait painting and contributed full-length portraits of George III and his queen to the first exhibition of the Royal Academy, where he was a founding member. His best-known works include portraits of Captain Cook and Garrick as Richard III, both engraved by Dixon. Being wealthy himself, he married a widow with an annual income of £15,000 in 1790, left his profession, and became the Member of Parliament for East Grinstead, taking on the additional name of Holland. He was made a baronet in 1800. He died on October 15, 1811, leaving behind a fortune of £200,000.

George Dance’s fifth and youngest son, George Dance, the younger (1741-1825), succeeded his father as city surveyor and architect in 1768. He was then only twenty-seven, had spent several years abroad, chiefly in Italy with his brother Nathaniel, and had already distinguished himself by designs for Blackfriars Bridge sent to the 1761 exhibition of the Incorporated Society of Artists. His first important public work was the rebuilding of Newgate prison in 1770. The front of the Guildhall was also his. He, too, was a foundation member of the Royal Academy, and for a number of years the last survivor of the forty original academicians. His last years were devoted to art rather than to architecture, and after 1798 his Academy contributions consisted solely of chalk portraits of his friends, seventy-two of which were engraved and published (1808-1814). He resigned his office in 1815, and after many years of illness died on the 14th of January 1825, and was buried in St Paul’s. His son, Charles Dance (1794-1863), was for thirty years registrar, taxing officer and chief clerk of the insolvent debtors’ court, retiring, when it was abolished, on an allowance. In collaboration with J. R. Planché and others, or alone, he wrote a great number of extravaganzas, farces and comediettas. He was one of the first, if not the first, of the burlesque writers, and was the author of those produced so successfully by Madame Vestris for years at the Olympic. Of his farces, Delicate Ground, Who Speaks First?, A Morning Call and others are still occasionally revived. He died on the 6th of January 1863.

George Dance’s fifth and youngest son, George Dance, the younger (1741-1825), took over his father's role as city surveyor and architect in 1768 when he was just twenty-seven. He had spent several years abroad, primarily in Italy with his brother Nathaniel, and had already made a name for himself with his designs for Blackfriars Bridge, which he submitted to the 1761 exhibition of the Incorporated Society of Artists. His first major public project was the reconstruction of Newgate prison in 1770. He also designed the front of the Guildhall. He was a founding member of the Royal Academy and was, for many years, the last survivor among the forty original academicians. In his later years, he focused more on art than architecture, and after 1798, his contributions to the Academy consisted only of chalk portraits of his friends, seventy-two of which were engraved and published (1808-1814). He resigned his position in 1815, and after many years of illness, he passed away on January 14, 1825, and was buried in St Paul’s. His son, Charles Dance (1794-1863), served for thirty years as the registrar, taxing officer, and chief clerk of the insolvent debtors’ court, retiring with a pension when it was abolished. He collaborated with J. R. Planché and others or worked solo to write a large number of extravaganzas, farces, and comediettas. He was among the first, if not the very first, burlesque writers and produced works that were successfully presented by Madame Vestris at the Olympic for many years. Some of his farces, like Delicate Ground, Who Speaks First?, A Morning Call, and others are still revived from time to time. He died on January 6, 1863.


DANCE (Fr. danse; of obscure origin, connected with Old High Ger. danson, to stretch). The term “dancing” in its widest sense includes three things:—(1) the spontaneous activity of the muscles under the influence of some strong emotion, such as social joy or religious exultation; (2) definite combinations of graceful movements performed for the sake of the pleasure 795 which the exercise affords to the dancer or to the spectator; (3) carefully trained movements which are meant by the dancer vividly to represent the actions and passions of other people. In the highest sense it seems to be for prose-gesture what song is for the instinctive exclamations of feeling. Regarded as the outlet or expression of strong feeling, dancing does not require much discussion, for the general rule applies that such demonstrations for a time at least sustain and do not exhaust the flow of feeling. The voice and the facial muscles and many of the organs are affected at the same time, and the result is a high state of vitality which among the spinning Dervishes or in the ecstatic worship of Bacchus and Cybele amounted to something like madness. Even here there is traceable an undulatory movement which, as Herbert Spencer says, is “habitually generated by feeling in its bodily discharge.” But it is only in the advanced or volitional stage of dancing that we find developed the essential feature of measure, which has been said to consist in “the alternation of stronger muscular contractions with weaker ones,” an alternation which, except in the cases of savages and children, “is compounded with longer rises and falls in the degree of muscular excitement.” In analysing the state of mind which this measured dancing produces, we must first of all allow for the pleasant glow of excitement caused by the excess of blood sent to the brain. But apart from this, there is an agreeable sense of uniformity in the succession of muscular efforts, and in the spaces described, and also in the period of their recurrence. If the steps of dancing and the intervals of time be not precisely equal, there is still a pleasure depending on the gradually increasing intensity of motion, on the undulation which uniformly rises in order to fall. As Florizel says to Perdita, “When you do dance, I wish you a wave of the sea” (Winter’s Tale, iv. 3). The mind feels the beauty of emphasis and cadence in muscular motion, just as much as in musical notes. Then, the figure of the dance is frequently a circle or some more graceful curve or series of curves,—a fact which satisfies the dancer as well as the eye of the spectator. But all such effects are intensified by the use of music, which not only brings a perfectly distinct set of pleasurable sensations to dancer and spectator, but by the control of dancing produces an inexpressibly sweet harmony of sound and motion. This harmony is further enriched if there be two dancing together on one plan, or a large company of dancers executing certain evolutions, the success of which depends on the separate harmonies of all the couples. The fundamental condition is that throughout the dance all the dancers keep within their bases of gravity. This is not only required for the dancers’ own enjoyment, but, as in the famous Mercury on tiptoe, it is essential to the beautiful effect for the spectator. The idea of much being safely supported by little is what proves attractive in the posturing ballet. But this is merely one condition of graceful dancing, and if it be made the chief object the dancer sinks into the acrobat.

DANCE (Fr. danse; of unclear origin, linked to Old High Ger. danson, meaning to stretch). The term “dancing” in its broadest sense encompasses three elements:—(1) the natural movement of muscles driven by strong emotions, like social happiness or religious joy; (2) specific combinations of graceful movements performed for the enjoyment of the dancer or the audience; (3) expertly trained movements intended by the dancer to vividly represent the actions and emotions of others. In its highest form, it appears to be to prose-gesture what song is to spontaneous expressions of feelings. When viewed as an outlet for strong emotions, dancing needs little explanation, as it generally sustains, rather than exhausts, feelings for a time. The voice, facial muscles, and many body organs are engaged simultaneously, resulting in a heightened state of vitality that, for the spinning Dervishes or in the ecstatic worship of Bacchus and Cybele, reached a level akin to madness. Even here, we can see a wave-like movement that, as Herbert Spencer notes, is “habitually generated by feeling in its bodily expression.” However, it is only in the advanced or intentional stage of dancing that the key feature of measure emerges, which has been described as “the switching between stronger muscular contractions and weaker ones,” a switch that, except among savages and children, “is combined with longer rises and falls in the degree of muscular excitement.” When we analyze the mental state produced by this measured dancing, we must first consider the pleasant thrill of excitement from the increased blood flow to the brain. Beyond this, there is a satisfying sense of uniformity in the sequence of muscle movements, the shapes made, and the timing of their repetition. If the dance steps and timing are not exactly equal, there is still pleasure in the gradually intensifying motion, in the waves that consistently rise before falling. As Florizel says to Perdita, “When you do dance, I wish you a wave of the sea” (Winter’s Tale, iv. 3). The mind appreciates the beauty of emphasis and rhythm in physical movement just as much as in musical notes. Furthermore, the shape of the dance is often a circle or a series of graceful curves, pleasing both the dancer and the observer. But these effects are enhanced by music, which not only provides a clear set of enjoyable sensations for both dancers and spectators, but also creates a sweet harmony of sound and motion through controlled dancing. This harmony becomes richer when two dancers move together in sync or when a larger group performs coordinated movements, the success of which relies on the individual harmonies of each pair. The key requirement is that all dancers maintain their centers of gravity throughout the performance. This is essential not just for the dancers' enjoyment, but, similar to the famous Mercury on tiptoe, it’s crucial for achieving a beautiful visual effect for the audience. The concept of larger elements being securely supported by smaller ones is what makes the posturing ballet appealing. Yet, this is just one aspect of elegant dancing, and if it becomes the main focus, the dancer risks becoming merely an acrobat.

Dancing is, in fact, the universal human expression, by movements of the limbs and body, of a sense of rhythm which is implanted among the primitive instincts of the animal world. The rhythmic principle of motion extends throughout the universe, governing the lapse of waves, the flow of tides, the reverberations of light and sound, and the movements of celestial bodies; and in the human organism it manifests itself in the automatic pulses and flexions of the blood and tissues. Dancing is merely the voluntary application of the rhythmic principle, when excitement has induced an abnormally rapid oxidization of brain tissue, to the physical exertion by which the overcharged brain is relieved. This is primitive dancing; and it embraces all movements of the limbs and body expressive of joy or grief, all pantomimic representations of incidents in the lives of the dancers, all performances in which movements of the body are employed to excite the passions of hatred or love, pity or revenge, or to arouse the warlike instincts, and all ceremonies in which such movements express homage or worship, or are used as religious exercises. Although music is not an essential part of dancing, it almost invariably accompanies it, even in the crudest form of a rhythm beaten out on a drum.

Dancing is, in fact, a universal way for humans to express themselves through the movement of limbs and bodies, reflecting a sense of rhythm that is deep-rooted in the primitive instincts of the animal kingdom. The principle of rhythmic motion is present throughout the universe, influencing the rise and fall of waves, the ebb and flow of tides, the echoes of light and sound, and the movement of celestial bodies. In humans, it shows up as the automatic rhythms and contractions of blood and tissue. Dancing is simply the intentional use of this rhythmic principle, typically triggered by heightened excitement that causes an unusually quick oxidation of brain tissue, leading to a physical exertion that alleviates the overstimulated brain. This is basic dancing, encompassing all movements of the limbs and body that express joy or sorrow, all dramatic portrayals of events from the dancers' lives, all performances where body movements are used to evoke feelings of hate or love, compassion or vengeance, or to awaken martial instincts, along with all rituals where such movements convey respect or veneration or serve as religious practices. While music isn't a mandatory part of dancing, it almost always accompanies it, even in its simplest form, like a rhythm created by a drum.

Primitive and Ancient Dancing.—In Tigrè the Abyssinians dance the chassée step in a circle, and keep time by shrugging their shoulders and working their elbows backwards and forwards. At intervals the dancers squat on the ground, still moving the arms and shoulders in the same way. The Bushmen dance in their low-roofed rooms supporting themselves by sticks; one foot remains motionless, the other dances in a wild irregular manner, while the hands are occupied with the sticks. The Gonds, a hill-tribe of Hindustan, dance generally in pairs, with a shuffling step, the eyes on the ground, the arms close to the body, and the elbows at an angle with the closed hand. Advancing to a point, the dancer suddenly erects his head, and wheels round to the starting point. The women of the Pultooah tribe dance in a circle, moving backwards and forwards in a bent posture. The Santal women, again, are slow and graceful in dance; joining hands, they form themselves into the arc of a circle, towards the centre of which they advance and then retire, moving at the same time slightly towards the right, so as to complete the circle in an hour. The Kukis of Assam have only the rudest possible step, an awkward hop with the knees very much bent. The national dance of the Kamchadale is one of the most violent known, every muscle apparently quivering at every movement. But there, and in some other cases where men and women dance together, there is a trace of deliberate obscenity; the dance is, in fact, a rude representation of sexual passion. It has been said that some of the Tasmanian corrobories have a phallic design. The Yucatan dance of naual may also be mentioned. The Andamans hop on one foot and swing the arms violently backwards and forwards. The Veddahs jump with both feet together, patting their bodies, or clapping their hands, and make a point of bringing their long hair down in front of the face. In New Caledonia the dance consists of a series of twistings of the body, the feet being lifted alternately, but without change of place. The Fijians jump half round from side to side with their arms akimbo. The only modulation of the Samoan dance is one of time—a crescendo movement, which is well-known in the modern ball-room. The Javans are perhaps unique in their distinct and graceful gestures of the hands and fingers. At a Mexican feast called Huitzilopochtli, the noblemen and women danced tied together at the hands, and embracing one another, the arms being thrown over the neck. This resembles the dance variously known as the Greek Bracelet or Brawl, Ὅρμος, or Bearsfeet; but all of them1 probably are to a certain extent symbolical of the relations between the sexes. Actual contact of the partners, however, is quite intelligible as matter of pure dancing; for, apart altogether from the pleasure of the embrace, the harmony of the double rotation adds very much to the enjoyment. In a very old Peruvian dance of ceremony before the Inca, several hundreds of men formed a chain, each taking hold of the hand of the man beyond his immediate neighbour, and the whole body moving forwards and backwards three steps at a time as they approached the throne. In this, as in the national dance of the Coles of Lower Bengal, there was perhaps a suggestion of “l’union fait la force.” In Yucatan stilts were occasionally used for dancing.

Primitive and Ancient Dancing.—In Tigrè, the Abyssinians dance the chassée step in a circle, keeping time by shrugging their shoulders and moving their elbows back and forth. At times, the dancers squat on the ground, still moving their arms and shoulders in the same way. The Bushmen dance in their low-roofed rooms, supporting themselves with sticks; one foot stays still while the other dances in a wild and irregular manner, and the hands are busy with the sticks. The Gonds, a hill tribe of Hindustan, typically dance in pairs with a shuffling step, eyes down, arms close to the body, and elbows bent with closed hands. When they advance to a point, the dancer suddenly lifts their head and spins back to the starting point. The women of the Pultooah tribe dance in a circle, moving back and forth in a bent posture. The Santal women, on the other hand, are slow and graceful in their dance; they join hands to form an arc of a circle and move towards the center, then retreat while slightly shifting to the right, completing the circle in an hour. The Kukis of Assam have the simplest step, an awkward hop with very bent knees. The national dance of the Kamchadale is among the most vigorous known, every muscle seeming to quiver with each movement. However, in this and some other cases where men and women dance together, there is a hint of deliberate obscenity; the dance is essentially a crude representation of sexual passion. It's been said that some Tasmanian corrobories have a phallic design. The Yucatec dance of naual can also be mentioned. In the Andamans, dancers hop on one foot while swinging their arms violently back and forth. The Veddahs jump with both feet together, patting their bodies or clapping their hands, making sure to bring their long hair in front of their faces. In New Caledonia, the dance consists of a series of twists of the body, with feet lifted alternately but without changing place. The Fijians jump halfway from side to side with their arms on their hips. The only variation in the Samoan dance is one of time—a crescendo movement, which is familiar in modern ballrooms. The Javans are perhaps unique in their distinct and graceful gestures of the hands and fingers. At a Mexican feast called Huitzilopochtli, noblemen and women danced while tied together at the hands, embracing each other with arms thrown over necks. This resembles a dance variously known as the Greek Bracelet or Brawl, Harbor, or Bearsfeet; but all of them probably symbolize the relationships between the sexes to some extent. Actual contact between partners is quite understandable as a matter of pure dancing; apart from the pleasure of the embrace, the harmony of their joint movements adds significantly to the enjoyment. In an ancient Peruvian ceremonial dance before the Inca, several hundred men formed a chain, each holding the hand of the person next to them, and the entire group moved forward and backward three steps at a time as they approached the throne. In this, as in the national dance of the Coles of Lower Bengal, there was perhaps a suggestion of “unity is strength.” In Yucatan, stilts were sometimes used for dancing.

It seldom happens that dancing takes place without accompaniment, either by the dancers or by others. This is not merely because the feelings which find relief in dancing express themselves at the same time in other forms; in some cases, indeed, the vocal and instrumental elements largely predominate, and form the ground-work of the whole emotional demonstration. Whether they do so or not will of course depend on the intellectual advancement of the nation or tribe and upon the particular development of their aesthetical sensibility. A striking instance occurs among the Zulus, whose grand dances are merely the accompaniment to the colloquial war and hunting songs, in which the women put questions which are answered by the men. So also in Tahiti there is a set of national ballads and songs, referring to many events in the past and present lives of the 796 people. The fisherman, the woodsman, the canoe-builder, has each his trade song, which on public occasions at least is illustrated by dancing. But the accompaniment is often consciously intended, by an appeal to the ear, to regulate and sustain the excitement of the muscles. And a close relation will be found always to exist between the excellence of a nation’s dancing and the excellence or complexity of its music and poetry. In some cases the performer himself sings or marks time by the clanking of ornaments on his person. In others the accompaniment consists sometimes of a rude chant improvised by those standing round, or of music from instruments, or of mere clapping of the hands, or of striking one stick against another or on the ground, or of “marking time,” in the technical sense. The Tasmanians beat on a rolled-up kangaroo-skin. The Kamchadales make a noise like a continuous hiccough all through the dance. The Andamans use a large hollow dancing-board, on which one man is set apart to stamp. Sometimes it is the privilege of the tribal chief to sing the accompaniment while his people dance. The savages of New Caledonia whistle and strike upon the hip.

Dancing rarely happens without some sort of accompaniment, whether from the dancers themselves or others. This isn't just because the emotions expressed in dance often find other outlets; in many cases, singing and instrumental music play a major role and provide the foundation for the entire emotional display. Whether this is true depends on the intellectual development of the nation or tribe and their particular aesthetic sensibilities. A notable example can be found among the Zulus, whose grand dances are simply a backdrop to their war and hunting songs, where women ask questions that men respond to. Similarly, in Tahiti, there are national ballads and songs that reflect many events from the past and present lives of the people. Fishermen, woodsmen, and canoe builders each have their work songs, which are often accompanied by dancing during public events. However, the accompaniment is often intentionally designed to enhance the auditory experience and to support and heighten the physical excitement of the dancers. There is consistently a close relationship between the quality of a nation's dance and the quality or complexity of its music and poetry. Sometimes, the performer sings or keeps time by clanking ornaments on their body. Other times, the accompaniment comes from a spontaneous chant by onlookers, music from instruments, hand clapping, or striking sticks together or against the ground, or through "marking time" in a technical sense. The Tasmanians beat on a rolled-up kangaroo skin. The Kamchadales make a hiccup-like noise throughout the dance. The Andamanese use a large hollow dancing board, where one person is designated to stomp. Occasionally, it is the privilege of the tribal chief to provide the song while his people dance. The natives of New Caledonia whistle and tap their hips.

The rude imitative dances of early civilization are of extreme interest. In the same way the dances of the Ostyak tribes (Northern Asiatic) imitate the habitual sports of the chase and the gambols of the wolf and the bear and other wild beasts, the dancing consisting mainly of sudden leaps and violent turns which exhaust the muscular powers of the whole body. The Kamchadales, too, in dancing, imitate bears, dogs and birds. The Kru dances of the Coast Negroes represent hunting scenes; and on the Congo, before the hunters start, they go through a dance imitating the habits of the gorilla and its movements when attacked. The Damara dance is a mimic representation of the movements of oxen and sheep, four men stooping with their heads in contact and uttering harsh cries. The canter of the baboon is the humorous part of the ceremony. The Bushmen dance in long irregular jumps, which they compare to the leaping of a herd of calves, and the Hottentots not only go on all-fours to counterfeit the baboon, but they have a dance in which the buzzing of a swarm of bees is represented. The Kennowits in Borneo introduce the mias and the deer for the same purpose. The Australians and Tasmanians in their dances called corrobories imitate the frog and the kangaroo (both leaping animals). The hunt of the emu is also performed, a number of men passing slowly round the fire and throwing their arrows about so as to imitate the movements of the animal’s head while feeding. The Gonds are fond of dancing the bison hunt, one man with skin and horns taking the part of the animal. Closely allied to these are the mimic fights, almost universal among tribes to which war is one of the great interests of life. The Bravery dance of the Dahomans and the Hoolee of the Bhil tribe in the Vindhya Hills are illustrations. The latter seems to have been reduced to an amusement conducted by professionals who go from village to village,—the battle being engaged in by women with long poles on the one side, and men with short cudgels on the other. There is here an element of comedy, which also appears in the Fiji club-dance. This, although no doubt originally suggested by war, is enlivened by the presence of a clown covered with leaves and wearing a mask. The monotonous song accompanying the club-dance is by way of commentary or explanation. So, also, in Guatemala there is a public baile or dance, in which all the performers, wearing the skins and heads of beasts, go through a mock battle, which always ends in the victory of those wearing the deer’s head. At the end the victors trace in the sand with a pole the figure of some animal; and this exhibition is supposed to have some historical reference. But nearly all savage tribes have a regular war-dance, in which they appear in fighting costume, handle their weapons, and go through the movements of challenge, conflict, pursuit or defeat. The women generally supply the stimulus of music. There is one very picturesque dance of the Natal Kaffirs, which probably refers to the departure of the warriors for the battle. The women appeal plaintively to the men, who slowly withdraw, stamping on the ground and darting their short spears or assegais towards the sky. In Madagascar, when the men are absent on war, the women dance for a great part of the day, believing that this inspires their husbands with courage. In this, however, there may be some religious significance. These war-dances are totally distinct from the institution of military drill, which belongs to a later period, when social life has become less impulsive and more reflective.2 There can be little doubt that some of the characteristic movements of these primitive hunting and war-dances survive in the smooth and ceremonious dances of the present day. But the early mimetic dance was not confined to these two subjects; it embraced the other great events of savage life—the drama of courtship and marriage, the funeral dance, the consecration of labour, the celebration of harvest or vintage;3 sometimes, too, purely fictitious scenes of dramatic interest, while other dances degenerated into games. For instance, in Yucatan one man danced in a cowering attitude round a circle, while another followed, hurling at him bohordos or canes, which were adroitly caught on a small stick. Again, in Tasmania, the dances of the women describe their “clamber for the opossum, diving for shell-fish, digging for roots, nursing children and quarrelling with husbands.” Another dance, in which a woman by gesture taunts a chieftain with cowardice, gives him an opportunity of coming forward and recounting his courageous deeds in dance. The funeral dance of the Todas (another Indian hill-tribe) consists in walking backwards and forwards, without variation, to a howling tune of “ha! hoo!” The meaning of this is obscure, but it can scarcely be solely an outburst of grief. In Dahomey the blacksmiths, carpenters, hunters, braves and bards, with their various tools and instruments, join in a dramatic dance. We may add here a form of dance which is almost precisely equivalent to the spoken incantation. It is used by the professional devil-dancer of the wild Veddahs for the cure of diseases. An offering of eatables is put on a tripod of sticks, and the dancer, decorated with green leaves, goes into a paroxysm of dancing, in the midst of which he receives the required information. This, however, rather belongs to the subject of religious dances.

The rough, imitative dances from early civilizations are incredibly fascinating. Just like the dances of the Ostyak tribes (Northern Asiatic) mimic the usual activities of hunting and the antics of wolves, bears, and other wild animals, their dancing is mainly composed of sudden leaps and wild turns that tire out the entire body. The Kamchadales also imitate bears, dogs, and birds in their dances. The Kru dances of the Coast Negroes depict hunting scenes; and in the Congo, before hunters embark, they perform a dance that imitates the habits and movements of gorillas when they are attacked. The Damara dance mimics the movements of oxen and sheep, with four men stooping together and making harsh cries. The humorous part of the ceremony is the way they mimic the baboon’s gait. The Bushmen engage in long, irregular jumps that they liken to a herd of calves leaping, and the Hottentots not only go on all fours to imitate the baboon, but they also have a dance that represents the buzzing of a beehive. The Kennowits in Borneo incorporate the mias and deer for similar reasons. Australians and Tasmanians, in their dances called corrobories, imitate frogs and kangaroos (both of which leap). They also perform the emu hunt, where a group of men slowly circles around the fire, throwing their arrows to mimic the animal's head movements while feeding. The Gonds enjoy dancing the bison hunt, with one man donning a skin and horns to portray the animal. Closely related to these are the mimic battles, nearly universal among tribes where war is a significant aspect of life. The Bravery dance of the Dahomans and the Hoolee of the Bhil tribe in the Vindhya Hills are examples. The latter seems to have evolved into an entertainment led by professionals who travel from village to village, with battles fought by women wielding long poles on one side and men using short clubs on the other. There's a comedic element present here, similar to the Fiji club-dance, which, although likely initially inspired by war, is enhanced by the presence of a clown covered in leaves and wearing a mask. The monotonous song accompanying the club dance serves as a commentary or explanation. Similarly, in Guatemala, there is a public baile or dance where all the performers, wearing animal skins and heads, engage in a mock battle, which always ends with those in deer heads emerging victorious. In the end, the winners draw an animal figure in the sand with a pole, which is believed to have some historical significance. Almost all tribal groups have a traditional war dance that showcases them in combat attire, wielding weapons, and going through the motions of challenging, fighting, pursuing, or facing defeat. Generally, the women provide the music for these dances. One particularly striking dance from the Natal Kaffirs likely symbolizes warriors departing for battle, where the women appeal poignantly to the men as they slowly leave, stamping their feet and flinging their short spears or assegais toward the sky. In Madagascar, when the men are away at war, the women dance for much of the day, believing it inspires their husbands with bravery. This might also carry some religious meaning. These war dances are completely different from military drills, which are associated with a later time when social life is less spontaneous and more reflective.2 It’s clear that some defining movements from these primitive hunting and war dances live on in the smooth and ceremonial dances we see today. However, the early imitative dance wasn't limited just to those two themes; it covered other significant events in the lives of indigenous people, including courtship and marriage, funeral dances, the dedication of labor, and the celebration of harvest or vintage;3 sometimes even fictitious scenes of dramatic interest, while other dances became playful games. For example, in Yucatan, one man danced in a crouched position around a circle, while another followed, throwing bohordos or canes that he skillfully caught with a small stick. Likewise, in Tasmania, women’s dances portray activities like hunting for opossums, diving for shellfish, digging for roots, caring for children, and arguing with husbands. Another dance, where a woman gestures to mock a chief for being cowardly, gives him a chance to step forward and recount his brave deeds through dance. The funeral dance of the Todas (another Indian hill tribe) involves walking back and forth monotonously to the howling chant of “ha! hoo!” Its meaning is unclear but it's unlikely to be just a display of sorrow. In Dahomey, blacksmiths, carpenters, hunters, warriors, and bards, equipped with their various tools and instruments, participate in dramatic dances. We can also mention a type of dance that closely resembles spoken incantation. It's performed by the professional devil dancer of the wild Veddahs to treat illnesses. An offering of food is placed on a stick tripod, and the dancer, adorned with green leaves, goes into a frenzied dance during which he receives the necessary insights or information. However, this falls more under the category of religious dances.

It is impossible here to enumerate either the names or the forms of the sacred dances which formed so prominent a part of the worship of antiquity. A mystic philosophy found in them a resemblance to the courses of the stars. This Pythagorean idea was expanded by Sir John Davies, in his epic poem Orchestra, published in 1596. They were probably adapted to many purposes,—to thanksgiving, praise, supplication and humiliation. It is only one striking illustration of this widespread practice, that there was at Rome a very ancient order of priests especially named Salii, who struck their shields and sang assamenta as they danced. The practice reappeared in the early church, special provision being made for dancing in the choir. Scaliger, who astonished Charles V. by his dancing powers, says the bishops were called Praesules, because they led the dance on feast days. According to some of the fathers, the angels are always dancing, and the glorious company of the apostles is really a chorus of dancers. Dancing, however, fell into discredit with the feast of the Agapae. St Augustine says, “Melius est fodere quam saltare”; and the practice was generally prohibited for some time. No church or sect has raged so fiercely against the cardinal sin of dancing as the Albigenses of Languedoc and the Waldenses, who agreed in calling it the devil’s procession. After the middle of the 18th century there were still traces of religious dancing in the cathedrals of Spain, Portugal and Roussillon—especially in the Mozarabic Mass of Toledo. An account of the numerous secular dances, public and private, of Greece and Rome will be found in the classical histories, and in J. Weaver’s Essay towards a History of Dancing, (London, 1712), which, however, must be revised by more recent authorities. The Pyrrhic (derived from the Memphitic) in all its local varieties, 797 the Bacchanalia and the Hymenaea were among the more important. The name of Lycurgus is also associated with the Trichoria. Among the stage dances of the Athenians, which formed interludes to the regular drama, one of the oldest was the Delian dance of the Labyrinth, ascribed to Theseus, and called Γέρανος, from its resemblance to the flight of cranes, and one of the most powerful was the dance of the Eumenides. A further development of the art took place at Rome, under Augustus, when Pylades and Bathyllus brought serious and comic pantomime to great perfection. The subjects chosen were such as the labours of Hercules, and the surprise of Venus and Mars by Vulcan. The state of public feeling on the subject is well shown in Lucian’s amusing dialogue De Saltatione. Before this Rome had only very inferior buffoons, who attended dinner parties, and whose art traditions belonged not to Greece, but to Etruria.4 Apparently, however, the Romans, though fond of ceremony and of the theatre, were by temperament not great dancers in private. Cicero says: “Nemo fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit.” But the Italic dance of the imperial theatre, supported by music and splendid dresses, supplanted for a time the older dramas. It was the policy of Augustus to cultivate other than political interests for the people; and he passed laws for the protection and privilege of the pantomimists. They were freed from the jus virgarum, and they used their freedom against the peace of the city. Tiberius and Domitian oppressed and banished them; Trajan and Aurelius gave them such titles as decurions and priests of Apollo; but the pantomime stage soon yielded to the general corruption of the empire.

It’s impossible to list the names or types of the sacred dances that were such a big part of ancient worship. A mystical philosophy found a connection between them and the movements of the stars. This Pythagorean idea was expanded by Sir John Davies in his epic poem Orchestra, published in 1596. They were likely used for various purposes—thanksgiving, praise, supplication, and humility. One striking example of this widespread practice was the ancient order of priests known as the Salii in Rome, who struck their shields and sang assamenta while dancing. This practice continued in the early church, with special provisions made for dancing in the choir. Scaliger, who amazed Charles V with his dancing ability, noted that bishops were called Praesules because they led the dance on feast days. Some church fathers said that angels are always dancing, and the glorious company of the apostles is truly a chorus of dancers. However, dancing lost its reputation with the feast of the Agapae. St. Augustine said, “It’s better to dig than to dance,” and the practice was generally banned for a time. No church or sect condemned the cardinal sin of dancing as fiercely as the Albigenses of Languedoc and the Waldenses, who referred to it as the devil’s procession. After the middle of the 18th century, traces of religious dancing could still be found in the cathedrals of Spain, Portugal, and Roussillon—especially in the Mozarabic Mass of Toledo. You can find an account of the many secular dances, both public and private, of Greece and Rome in classical histories and in J. Weaver’s Essay towards a History of Dancing, (London, 1712), although it needs to be updated with more recent research. The Pyrrhic dance (derived from the Memphitic), along with various local styles, the Bacchanalia, and the Hymenaea were among the key dances. Lycurgus is also linked to the Trichoria. Among the stage dances of the Athenians, which were interludes to the main drama, one of the oldest was the Delian dance of the Labyrinth, attributed to Theseus and called Γέρανος for its resemblance to the flight of cranes, while one of the most powerful was the dance of the Eumenides. The art further developed in Rome under Augustus when Pylades and Bathyllus perfected serious and comic pantomime. The subjects they chose included the labors of Hercules and the surprise of Venus and Mars by Vulcan. Lucian’s humorous dialogue De Saltatione reflects public sentiment about this topic. Before this, Rome only had very mediocre entertainers at dinner parties, whose artistic traditions were not from Greece but from Etruria. However, the Romans, even though they enjoyed ceremony and theater, weren’t naturally great dancers in private. Cicero stated, “Almost no one dances sober, unless they are mad.” Yet the Italic dance of the imperial theater, supported by music and elaborate costumes, temporarily replaced older dramas. Augustus sought to foster interests beyond politics for the people and enacted laws to protect and privilege the pantomime performers. They were freed from the jus virgarum and used this freedom against public order. Tiberius and Domitian oppressed and exiled them; Trajan and Aurelius granted them titles like decurions and priests of Apollo; but the stage of pantomime soon succumbed to the general decline of the empire.

Modern Dancing.—In modern civilized countries dancing has developed as an art and pastime, as an entertainment. Its direct application to arouse emotion or religious feeling tends to be obscured and finally dropped out.

Modern Dancing.—In today's civilized countries, dancing has evolved into an art form and a leisure activity, serving as entertainment. Its original purpose to evoke emotion or religious sentiment has become less noticeable and is eventually fading away.

Italy, in the 15th century, saw the renaissance of dancing, and France may be said to have been the nursery of the modern art, though comparatively few modern dances are really French in origin. The national dances of other countries were brought to France, studied systematically, and made perfect there. An English or a Bohemian dance, practised only amongst peasants, would be taken to France, polished and perfected, and would at last find its way back to its own country, no more recognizable than a piece of elegant cloth when it returns from the printer to the place from which as “grey” material it was sent. The fact that the terminology of dancing is almost entirely French is a sufficient indication of the origin of the rules that govern it. The earliest dances that bear any relation to the modern art are probably the danses basses and danses hautes of the 16th century. The danse basse was the dance of the court of Charles IX. and of good society, the steps being very grave and dignified, not to say solemn, and the accompaniment a psalm tune. The danses hautes or baladines had a skipping step, and were practised only by clowns and country people. More lively dances, such as the Gaillarde and Volta, were introduced into France from Italy by Catherine de’ Medici, but even in these the interest was chiefly spectacular. Other dances of the same period were the Branle (afterwards corrupted to Braule, and known in England as the Brawle)—a kind of generic dance which was capable of an almost infinite amount of variety. Thus there were imitative dances—Branles mimés, such as the Branles des Ermites, Branles des flambeaux and the Branles des lavandières. The Branle in its original form had steps like the Allemande. Perhaps the most famous and stately dance of this period was the Pavane (of Spanish origin), which is very fully described in Tabouret’s Orchésographie, the earliest work in which a dance is found minutely described. The Pavane, which was really more a procession than a dance, must have been a very gorgeous and noble sight, and it was perfectly suited to the dress of the period, the stiff brocades of the ladies and the swords and heavily-plumed hats of the gentlemen being displayed in its simple and dignified measures to great advantage. The dancers in the time of Henry III. of France usually sang, while performing the Pavane, a chanson, of which this is one of the verses:

Italy, in the 15th century, experienced a revival of dance, and France can be considered the birthplace of modern dance, although not many modern dances actually originated in France. The national dances from other countries were brought to France, studied thoroughly, and refined there. An English or Bohemian dance, which was only practiced among peasants, would be taken to France, polished up, and eventually return to its home country, completely transformed, much like how a piece of dull fabric becomes elegant after being printed. The fact that almost all dance terminology is in French strongly indicates the roots of the rules that govern it. The earliest dances related to modern dance are likely the danses basses and danses hautes of the 16th century. The danse basse was the court dance of Charles IX and the upper classes, with very serious and dignified steps that could even be described as solemn, accompanied by a psalm tune. The danses hautes, or baladines, featured a skipping step and were only practiced by clowns and rural folk. More lively dances like the Gaillarde and Volta were brought into France from Italy by Catherine de’ Medici, but even these were mainly about spectacle. Other dances from the same era included the Branle (later corrupted to Braule and known in England as the Brawle)—a type of dance that allowed for an almost limitless variety. There were also imitative dances—Branles mimés, such as the Branles des Ermites, Branles des flambeaux, and the Branles des lavandières. The original Branle had steps similar to the Allemande. Perhaps the most famous and dignified dance of this period was the Pavane (of Spanish origin), which is thoroughly described in Tabouret’s Orchésographie, the earliest work detailing a dance in depth. The Pavane, which was more of a procession than a dance, must have been a spectacular and noble sight, perfectly suited to the fashion of the time, showcasing the stiff brocades of the ladies and the swords and plumed hats of the gentlemen in its simple and dignified steps. The dancers during the reign of Henry III of France usually sang a chanson while performing the Pavane, one of which includes this verse:

“Approche donc, ma belle,

"Come closer, my beautiful,"

Approche-toi, mon bien;

Come here, my dear;

Ne me sois plus rebelle,

Stop being rebellious,

Puisque mon cœur est tien;

Since my heart is yours;

Pour mon âme apaiser,

To soothe my soul,

Donne-moi un baiser.”

"Give me a kiss."

In the Pavane and Branle, and in nearly all the dances of the 17th and 18th centuries, the practice of kissing formed a not unimportant part, and seems to have added greatly to the popularity of the pastime. Another extremely popular dance was the Saraband, which, however, died out after the 17th century. It was originally a Spanish dance, but enjoyed an enormous success for a time in France. Every dance at that time had its own tune or tunes, which were called by its own name, and of the Saraband the chevalier de Grammont wrote that “it either charmed or annoyed everyone, for all the guitarists of the court began to learn it, and God only knows the universal twanging that followed.” Vauquelin des Yveteaux, in his eightieth year, desired to die to the tune of the Saraband, “so that his soul might pass away sweetly.” After the Pavane came the Courante, a court dance performed on tiptoe with slightly jumping steps and many bows and curtseys. The Courante is one of the most important of the strictly modern dances. The minuet and the waltz were both in some degree derived from it, and it had much in common with the famous Seguidilla of Spain. It was a favourite dance of Louis XIV., who was an adept in the art, and it was regarded in his time as of such importance that a nobleman’s education could hardly have been said to be begun until he had mastered the Courante.

In the Pavane and Branle, and in almost all the dances of the 17th and 18th centuries, the practice of kissing played a significant role, which seems to have greatly increased the popularity of the activity. Another very popular dance was the Saraband, which, however, faded away after the 17th century. It started as a Spanish dance but experienced enormous success in France for a while. Every dance at that time had its own melody or melodies, which were known by its own name, and of the Saraband, the chevalier de Grammont remarked that “it either charmed or annoyed everyone, for all the guitarists at court began to learn it, and God only knows the universal twanging that followed.” Vauquelin des Yveteaux, at the age of eighty, expressed his desire to die to the tune of the Saraband, “so that his soul might pass away sweetly.” After the Pavane, came the Courante, a court dance performed on tiptoe with slightly jumping steps and many bows and curtseys. The Courante is one of the most important among the strictly modern dances. The minuet and the waltz were both somewhat derived from it, and it had much in common with the famous Seguidilla of Spain. It was a favorite dance of Louis XIV., who was skilled in the art, and it was considered so important at his time that a nobleman's education couldn't really be said to have begun until he had mastered the Courante.

The dance which the French brought to the greatest perfection—which many, indeed, regard as the fine flower of the art—was the Minuet. Its origin, as a rustic dance, is not less antique than that of the other dances from which the modern art has been evolved. It was originally a branle of Poitou, derived from the Courante. It came to Paris in 1650, and was first set to music by Lully. It was at first a gay and lively dance, but on being brought to court it soon lost its sportive character and became grave and dignified. It is mentioned by Beauchamps, the father of dancing-masters, who flourished in Louis XIV.’s reign, and also by Blondy, his pupil; but it was Pécour who really gave the minuet its popularity, and although it was improved and made perfect by Dauberval, Gardel, Marcel and Vestris, it was in Louis XV.’s reign that it saw its golden age. It was then a dance for two in moderate triple time, and was generally followed by the gavotte. Afterwards the minuet was considerably developed, and with the gavotte became chiefly a stage dance and a means of display; but it should be remembered that the minuets which are now danced on the stage are generally highly elaborated with a view to their spectacular effect, and have imported into them steps and figures which do not belong to the minuet at all, but are borrowed from all kinds of other dances. The original court minuet was a grave and simple dance, although it did not retain its simplicity for long. But when it became elaborated it was glorified and moulded into a perfect expression of an age in which deportment was most sedulously cultivated and most brilliantly polished. The “languishing eye and smiling mouth” had their due effect in the minuet; it was a school for chivalry, courtesy and ceremony; the hundred slow graceful movements and curtseys, the pauses which had to be filled by neatly-turned compliments, the beauty and bravery of attire—all were eloquent of graces and outward refinements which we cannot boast now. The fact that the measure of the minuet has become incorporated in the structure of the symphony shows how important was its place in the polite world. The Gavotte, which was often danced as a pendant to the minuet, was also originally a peasant’s dance, a danse des Gavots, and consisted chiefly of kissing and capering. It also became stiff and artificial, and in the later and more prudish half of the 18th century the ladies received bouquets instead of kisses in dancing the gavotte. It rapidly became a stage dance, and it has never been restored to the ballroom. Grétry attempted 798 to revive it, but his arrangement never became popular. Other dances which were naturalized in France were the Écossaise, popular in 1760; the Cotillon, fashionable under Charles X., derived from the peasant branles and danced by ladies in short skirts; the Galop, imported from Germany; the Lancers, invented by Laborde in 1836; the Polka, brought by a dancing-master from Prague in 1840; the Schottische, also Bohemian, first introduced in 1844; the Bourrée, or French clog-dance; the Quadrille, known in the 18th century as the Contre-danse; and the Waltz, which was danced as a volte by Henry III. of France, but only became popular in the beginning of the 19th century. We shall return to the history of some of these later dances in discussing the dances at present in use.

The dance that the French perfected to the highest degree—and which many consider the pinnacle of the art—was the Minuet. Its origins as a folk dance are just as old as those of other dances that led to the modern form. It started as a branle from Poitou, evolved from the Courante. It reached Paris in 1650 and was set to music for the first time by Lully. Initially, it was a cheerful and lively dance, but when it arrived at court, it quickly lost its playful nature and became serious and dignified. Beauchamps, the founder of dancing masters during Louis XIV's reign, mentioned it, as did his student Blondy; however, it was Pécour who truly popularized the minuet, and while Dauberval, Gardel, Marcel, and Vestris improved it, it reached its peak during Louis XV's reign. At that time, it was a dance for two in moderate triple time, typically followed by the gavotte. Later, the minuet underwent significant development and, along with the gavotte, became primarily a stage dance and a display art. It’s important to note that the minuets performed on stage today are usually highly stylized for visual impact, incorporating steps and figures from various other dances, which are not part of the original minuet at all. The initial court minuet was a serious and straightforward dance, although it didn't stay simple for long. When it became more elaborate, it transformed into a perfect reflection of an era that highly valued manners and poise. The “languishing eye and smiling mouth” played their part in the minuet; it served as a training ground for chivalry, courtesy, and ceremony; the intricate slow movements, curtsies, and the pauses filled with cleverly crafted compliments, along with the elegance of attire—all highlighted graces and refinements that we can no longer claim. The fact that the minuet's rhythm has been absorbed into the structure of the symphony indicates its importance in polite society. The Gavotte, which was often danced alongside the minuet, also originated as a peasant dance, a danse des Gavots, mainly involving kissing and dancing. It too became formal and artificial, and in the later, more prudish part of the 18th century, ladies received bouquets instead of kisses when dancing the gavotte. It quickly turned into a stage dance and has never returned to the ballroom. Grétry tried to revive it, but his version never gained popularity. Other dances that became established in France included the Écossaise, popular in 1760; the Cotillon, fashionable during Charles X's reign, derived from peasant branles and performed by ladies in short skirts; the Galop, brought in from Germany; the Lancers, created by Laborde in 1836; the Polka, introduced by a dancing master from Prague in 1840; the Schottische, also from Bohemia, first presented in 1844; the Bourrée, or French clog dance; the Quadrille, known in the 18th century as the Contre-danse; and the Waltz, which was danced as a volte by Henry III of France but only gained popularity at the start of the 19th century. We will revisit the history of some of these later dances when discussing the currently popular dances.

If France has been the nursery and school of the art of dancing, Spain is its true home. There it is part of the national life, the inevitable expression of the gay, contented, irresponsible, sunburnt nature of the people. The form of Spanish dances has hardly changed; some of them are of great antiquity, and may be traced back with hardly a break to the performances in ancient Rome of the famous dancing-girls of Cadiz. The connexion is lost during the period of the Arab invasion, but the art was not neglected, and Jovellanos suggests that it took refuge in the Asturias. At any rate, dances of the 10th and 12th centuries have been preserved uncorrupted. The earliest dances known were the Turdion, the Gibidana, the Pié-de-gibao, and (later) the Madama Orleans, the Alemana and the Pavana. Under Philip IV. theatrical dancing was in high popularity, and ballets were organized with extraordinary magnificence of decoration and costume. They supplanted the national dances, and the Zarabanda and Chacona were practically extinct in the 18th century. It is at this period that the famous modern Spanish dances, the Bolero, Seguidilla and the Fandango, first appear. Of these the Fandango is the most important. It is danced by two people in 6-8 time, beginning slowly and tenderly, the rhythm marked by the click of castanets, the snapping of the fingers and the stamping of feet, and the speed gradually increasing until a whirl of exaltation is reached. A feature of the Fandango and also of the Seguidilla is a sudden pause of the music towards the end of each measure, upon which the dancers stand rigid in the attitudes in which the stopping of the music found them, and only move again when the music is resumed. M. Vuillier, in his History of Dancing, gives the following description of the Fandango:—“Like an electric shock, the notes of the Fandango animate all hearts. Men and women, young and old, acknowledge the power of this air over the ears and soul of every Spaniard. The young men spring to their places, rattling castanets or imitating their sound by snapping their fingers. The girls are remarkable for the willowy languor and lightness of their movements, the voluptuousness of their attitudes—beating the exactest time with tapping heels. Partners tease and entreat and pursue each other by turns. Suddenly the music stops, and each dancer shows his skill by remaining absolutely motionless, bounding again into the full life of the Fandango as the orchestra strikes up. The sound of the guitar, the violin, the rapid tic-tac of heels (taconeos), the crack of fingers and castanets, the supple swaying of the dancers, fill the spectator with ecstasy. The measure whirls along in a rapid triple time. Spangles glitter; the sharp clank of ivory and ebony castanets beats out the cadence of strange, throbbing, deepening notes—assonances unknown to music, but curiously characteristic, effective and intoxicating. Amidst the rustle of silks, smiles gleam over white teeth, dark eyes sparkle and droop and flash up again in flame. All is flutter and glitter, grace and animation—quivering, sonorous, passionate, seductive.”

If France has been the birthplace and training ground of dance, Spain is its true home. There, dance is woven into the national culture, reflecting the joyful, carefree, sun-kissed spirit of the people. The forms of Spanish dance have hardly changed; some are quite ancient, tracing back almost seamlessly to the performances of the famous dancing-girls from Cadiz in ancient Rome. The connection was lost during the Arab invasion, but the art was not forgotten, and Jovellanos suggests it found refuge in Asturias. Anyway, dances from the 10th and 12th centuries have been preserved untouched. The earliest known dances were the Turdion, Gibidana, Pié-de-gibao, and later the Madama Orleans, Alemana, and Pavana. Under Philip IV, theatrical dance became highly popular, with ballets organized featuring extraordinary decorations and costumes. They overshadowed the national dances, and the Zarabanda and Chacona nearly disappeared by the 18th century. It was during this time that the renowned modern Spanish dances, the Bolero, Seguidilla, and Fandango, first emerged. Among these, the Fandango is the most significant. It is danced by two people in a 6-8 time signature, starting slowly and gently, with the rhythm emphasized by the click of castanets, finger snaps, and foot stomps, gradually speeding up until a whirlwind of excitement is reached. A hallmark of both the Fandango and the Seguidilla is a sudden pause in the music towards the end of each measure, during which the dancers freeze in their positions, only moving again when the music resumes. M. Vuillier, in his History of Dancing, describes the Fandango as follows:—“Like an electric shock, the notes of the Fandango animate all hearts. Men and women, young and old, all feel the power of this music over every Spaniard’s ears and soul. Young men leap into action, clicking castanets or mimicking their sound by snapping their fingers. The girls are noteworthy for the graceful languor and lightness of their movements, their alluring postures—perfectly in time with tapping heels. Partners tease, urge, and chase one another. Suddenly, the music stops, and each dancer demonstrates their skill by standing completely still, springing back into the lively rhythm of the Fandango as the orchestra resumes. The sounds of the guitar, violin, the quick tic-tac of heels (taconeos), the snap of fingers and castanets, and the fluid swaying of the dancers create ecstasy for the audience. The dance moves quickly in a rapid triple time. Sparkles catch the eye; the sharp clack of ivory and ebony castanets punctuates the rhythm of strange, deepening notes—unfamiliar but oddly distinctive, effective, and intoxicating. Amid the rustling of silks, shining smiles reveal white teeth, dark eyes sparkle, droop, and ignite with passion. Everything is a flurry of glitter, grace, and energy—vibrant, resonant, passionate, and seductive.”

The Bolero is a comparatively modern dance, having been invented by Sebastian Cerezo, a celebrated dancer of the time of King Charles III. It is remarkable for the free use made in it of the arms, and is said to be derived from the ancient Zarabanda, a violent and licentious dance, which has entirely disappeared, and with which the later Saraband has practically nothing in common. The step of the Bolero is low and gliding but well marked. It is danced by one or more couples. The Seguidilla is hardly less ancient than the Fandango, which it resembles. Every province in Spain has its own Seguidilla, and the dance is accompanied by coplas, or verses, which are sung either to traditional melodies or to the tunes of local composers; indeed, the national music of Spain consists largely of these coplas. Baron Davillier, among several specimens of Seguidillas, gives this one

The Bolero is a relatively modern dance, created by Sebastian Cerezo, a famous dancer during the time of King Charles III. It’s notable for the expressive use of the arms and is believed to be derived from the ancient Zarabanda, a once-violent and uninhibited dance that has completely disappeared and has little in common with the later Saraband. The steps of the Bolero are low and smooth but clearly defined. It can be danced by one or more couples. The Seguidilla is almost as old as the Fandango, which it resembles. Every region in Spain has its own version of the Seguidilla, and the dance is accompanied by coplas, or verses, which are sung to either traditional melodies or tunes by local composers; indeed, the national music of Spain largely consists of these coplas. Baron Davillier, among several examples of Seguidillas, includes this one.

“Mi corazon volando

"My heart is flying"

Se fué á tu pecho;

Se fue a tu pecho;

Le cortaste las alas,

You clipped their wings,

Y quédo dentro.

Y me quedé dentro.

Por atrevido

For being bold

Se quedará por siempre

Will remain forever

En el metido.”5

In the mix. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

M. Vuillier quotes a copla which he heard at Polenza, in the Balearic Islands. This verse is formed on the rhythm of the Malagueña:

M. Vuillier quotes a copla that he heard in Polenza, in the Balearic Islands. This verse follows the rhythm of the Malagueña:

“Una estrella se ha pardida

"Una estrella se ha perdido"

En el ciel y no parece;

En el cielo y no parece;

En tu cara se ha metido;

En tu cara se ha metido;

Y en tu frente resplandece.”6

And it shines on your forehead.”__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

The Jota is the national dance of Aragon, a lively and splendid, but withal dignified and reticent, dance derived from the 16th-century Passacaille. It is still used as a religious dance. The Cachuca is a light and graceful dance in triple time. It is performed by a single dancer of either sex. The head and shoulders play an important part in the movements of this dance. Other provincial dances now in existence are the Jaleo de Jerez, a whirling measure performed by gipsies, the Palotéa, the Polo, the Gallegada, the Muyneria, the Habas Verdes, the Zapateado, the Zorongo, the Vito, the Tirano and the Tripola Trapola. Most of these dances are named either after the places where they are danced or after the composers who have invented tunes for them. Many of them are but slight variations from the Fandango and Seguidilla.

The Jota is the national dance of Aragon, a lively and splendid but also dignified and reserved dance that comes from the 16th-century Passacaille. It is still performed as a religious dance. The Cachuca is a light and graceful dance in triple time, done by a single dancer of either gender. The head and shoulders play a significant role in the movements of this dance. Other existing regional dances include the Jaleo de Jerez, a whirling dance performed by gypsies, the Palotéa, the Polo, the Gallegada, the Muyneria, the Habas Verdes, the Zapateado, the Zorongo, the Vito, the Tirano, and the Tripola Trapola. Most of these dances are named after the places where they are performed or after the composers who created tunes for them. Many of them are just slight variations of the Fandango and Seguidilla.

The history of court dancing in Great Britain is practically the same as that of France, and need not occupy much of our attention here. But there are strictly national dances still in existence which are quite peculiar to the country, and may be traced back to the dances and games of the Saxon gleemen. The Egg dance and the Carole were both Saxon dances, the Carole being a Yule-tide festivity, of which the present-day Christmas carol is a remnant. The oldest dances which remain unchanged in England are the Morris dances, which were introduced in the time of Edward III. The name Morris or Moorish refers to the origin of these dances, which are said to have been brought back by John of Gaunt from his travels in Spain. The Morris dances are associated with May-day, and are danced round a maypole to a lively and capering step, some of the performers having bells fastened to their knees in the Moorish manner. They are dressed as characters of old English tradition, such as Robin Hood, Maid Marian, Friar Tuck, Little John and Tom the Piper. All the true country dances of Great Britain are of an active and lively measure; they may all, indeed, be said to be founded on the jig; and the hornpipe, which is a kind of jig, is the national dance of England. Captain Cook, on his voyages, made his sailors dance hornpipes in calm weather to keep them in good health. A characteristic of English dances was that they partook to a great extent of the nature of games; there was little variety in the steps, which were nearly all those of the jig or hornpipe, but these were incorporated into various games or plays, of which the Morris dances were the most elaborate. Richard Baxter wrote that “sometimes the Morris dancers would come into the church in all their linen and scarves and antic dresses, with Morris bells jingling at their legs; and as soon as Common Prayer was read, did haste and presently to their play again.” May-day has always been celebrated in England with rustic dances and festivities. Before the Reformation there were no 799 really national dances in use at court; but in the reign of Elizabeth the homely, domestic style of dancing reached the height of its popularity. Remnants of many of these dances remain to-day in the games played by children and country people; “Hunt the Slipper,” “Kiss in the Ring,” “Here we go round the Mulberry Bush,” are examples. All the Tudor dances were kissing dances, and must have been the occasion of a great deal of merriment. Mrs Groves gives the following description of the Cushion dance:—“The dance is begun by a single person, man or woman, who, taking a cushion in hand, dances about the room, and at the end of a short time stops and sings: ‘This dance it will no farther go,’ to which the musician answers: ’I pray you, good sir, why say so?’ ‘Because Joan Sanderson will not come to.’ ‘She must come to whether she will or no,’ returns the musician, and then the dancer lays the cushion before a woman; she kneels and he kisses her, singing ‘Welcome, Joan Sanderson.’ Then she rises, takes up the cushion, and both dance and sing ‘Prinkum prankum is a fine dance, and shall we go dance it over again?’ Afterwards the woman takes the cushion and does as the man did.” Other popular dances—generally adapted to the tunes of popular songs, the nature of some of which may be guessed from their titles—were the Trenchmore, Omnium-gatherum, Tolly-polly, Hoite cum toite, Dull Sir John, Faine I would, Sillinger, All in a Garden Green, An Old Man’s a Bed Full of Bones, If All the World were Paper, John, Come Kiss Me Now, Cuckholds All Awry, Green Sleeves and Pudding Pies, Lumps of Pudding, Under and Over, Up Tails All, The Slaughter House, Rub her Down with Straw, Have at thy Coat Old Woman, The Happy Marriage, Dissembling Love, Sweet Kate, Once I Loved a Maiden Fair. Dancing practically disappeared during the Puritan régime, but with the Restoration it again became popular. It underwent no considerable developments, however, until the reign of Queen Anne, when the glories of Bath were revived in the beginning of the 18th century, and Beau Nash drew up his famous codes of rules for the regulation of dress and manners, and founded the balls in which the polite French dances completely eclipsed the simpler English ones. An account of a dancing lesson witnessed by a fond parent at this time is worth quoting, as it shows how far the writer (but not his daughter) had departed from the jolly, romping traditions of the old English dances:—“As the best institutions are liable to corruption, so, sir, I must acquaint you that very great abuses are crept into this entertainment. I was amazed to see my girl handed by and handing young fellows with so much familiarity, and I could not have thought it had been my child. They very often made use of a most impudent and lascivious step called setting to partners, which I know not how to describe to you but by telling you that it is the very reverse of back to back. At last an impudent young dog bid the fiddlers play a dance called Moll Patley, and, after having made two or three capers, ran to his partner, locked his arms in hers, and whisked her round cleverly above ground in such a manner that I, who sat upon one of the lowest benches, saw farther above her shoe than I can think fit to acquaint you with. I could no longer endure these enormities, wherefore, just as my girl was going to be made a whirligig, I ran in, seized my child and carried her home.” What we may call polite dancing, when it became fashionable, soon invaded London, its first home being Madame Cornely’s famous Carlisle House in Soho Square. Ranelagh and Vauxhall and Almack’s were all extensively patronized, and the rage for magnificent entertainment and dancing culminated in the erection of the palatial Pantheon in Oxford Street—a place so universally patronized that even Dr Johnson was to be found there. White’s and Boodle’s were also famous assembly rooms, but the most exclusive of all these establishments was Almack’s, the original of Brooks’s Club.

The history of court dancing in Great Britain closely mirrors that of France, so we won't focus on it here. However, there are distinct national dances unique to the country that can be traced back to the dances and games of the Saxon gleemen. The Egg dance and the Carole were both Saxon dances, with the Carole being a Yule-tide celebration, from which today's Christmas carol is derived. The oldest dances that have remained unchanged in England are the Morris dances, introduced during Edward III's reign. The name Morris or Moorish refers to the origins of these dances, which are said to have been brought back by John of Gaunt from his travels in Spain. Morris dances are associated with May Day, performed around a maypole with lively steps, some dancers wearing bells tied to their knees in the Moorish style. They dress as characters from old English tradition, including Robin Hood, Maid Marian, Friar Tuck, Little John, and Tom the Piper. All genuine country dances in Great Britain have a lively and active rhythm; they are largely based on the jig, with the hornpipe—a type of jig—being England's national dance. Captain Cook had his sailors dance hornpipes during calm weather to keep them healthy. A hallmark of English dances is that they often resembled games; there wasn't much variety in the steps, which were mainly those of the jig or hornpipe. These steps were incorporated into various games or plays, with the Morris dances being the most complex. Richard Baxter noted that “sometimes the Morris dancers would come into the church in all their linen and scarves and whimsical outfits, with Morris bells jingling on their legs; and as soon as Common Prayer was done, they hurried back to their performance again.” May Day has consistently been celebrated in England with rustic dances and festivities. Before the Reformation, there were no true national dances practiced at court, but during Elizabeth's reign, a more homey style of dancing reached peak popularity. Elements of many of these dances persist today in games played by children and country folk; examples include “Hunt the Slipper,” “Kiss in the Ring,” and “Here we go round the Mulberry Bush.” All the Tudor dances involved kissing and must have created plenty of merriment. Mrs. Groves describes the Cushion dance as follows: “The dance starts with one person, either man or woman, who holds a cushion and dances around the room. After a short time, they stop and sing: ‘This dance it will go no further,’ to which the musician replies: ‘I pray you, good sir, why say so?’ ‘Because Joan Sanderson will not come to.’ ‘She must come to whether she likes it or not,’ the musician says, then the dancer places the cushion before a woman; she kneels, and he kisses her, singing ‘Welcome, Joan Sanderson.’ She then stands, picks up the cushion, and they both dance and sing ‘Prinkum prankum is a fine dance, and shall we go dance it over again?’ Afterward, the woman takes the cushion and does as the man did.” Other popular dances—often set to the tunes of popular songs, some of which can be inferred from their titles—included Trenchmore, Omnium-gatherum, Tolly-polly, Hoite cum toite, Dull Sir John, Faine I would, Sillinger, All in a Garden Green, An Old Man’s a Bed Full of Bones, If All the World were Paper, John, Come Kiss Me Now, Cuckholds All Awry, Green Sleeves and Pudding Pies, Lumps of Pudding, Under and Over, Up Tails All, The Slaughter House, Rub her Down with Straw, Have at thy Coat Old Woman, The Happy Marriage, Dissembling Love, Sweet Kate, Once I Loved a Maiden Fair. Dancing almost vanished during the Puritan regime, but it became popular again with the Restoration. However, it didn't undergo significant changes until Queen Anne's reign, when the glories of Bath were revived at the start of the 18th century, and Beau Nash established his renowned rules for dress and manners, starting balls where polite French dances overshadowed the simpler English ones. An account of a dance lesson observed by a concerned parent at that time is worth citing, as it highlights how much the writer (but not his daughter) had strayed from the jovial, playful traditions of old English dances: “As even the best customs can become corrupted, I must inform you that serious abuses have crept into this entertainment. I was shocked to see my girl being handed off and handing young men with such familiarity, and I couldn't believe it was my child. They frequently used a very brazen and suggestive move called setting to partners, which I can't quite describe except to say it's the exact opposite of back to back. Eventually, a bold young man asked the fiddlers to play a dance called Moll Patley, and after making two or three jumps, he ran to his partner, locked her arms in his, and spun her around effortlessly, so much so that I, sitting on one of the lowest benches, saw more than I think is proper to share with you. I could no longer tolerate these offenses, so just as my girl was about to be made a whirligig, I rushed in, grabbed my child, and took her home.” What we might describe as polite dancing, once it became fashionable, quickly spread to London, first establishing a base at Madame Cornely’s renowned Carlisle House in Soho Square. Ranelagh, Vauxhall, and Almack’s were all heavily frequented, and the trend for lavish entertainment and dancing peaked with the construction of the grand Pantheon in Oxford Street—a venue so popular that even Dr. Johnson was known to attend. White’s and Boodle’s were also famous assembly rooms, but the most exclusive of all these was Almack’s, the precursor to Brooks’s Club.

The only true national dances of Scotland are reels, strathspeys and flings, while in Ireland there is but one dance—the jig, which is there, however, found in many varieties and expressive of many shades of emotion, from the maddest gaiety to the wildest lament. Curiously enough, although the Welsh dance often, they have no strictly national dances.

The only real national dances of Scotland are reels, strathspeys, and flings, while in Ireland, there's just one dance—the jig, which comes in many different forms and expresses a wide range of emotions, from the craziest joy to the deepest sorrow. Interestingly, even though the Welsh dance often, they don’t have any strictly national dances.

Dancing in present-day society is a comparatively simple affair, as five-sixths of almost all ball programmes consists of waltzes. The origin of the waltz is a much-debated subject, the French, Italians and Bavarians each claiming for their respective countries the honour of having given birth to it. As a matter of fact the waltz, as it is now danced, comes from Germany; but it is equally true that its real origin is French, since it is a development of the Volte, which in its turn came from the Lavolta of Provence, one of the most ancient of French dances. The Lavolta was fashionable in the 16th century and was the delight of the Valois court. The Volte danced by Henry III. was really a Valse à deux pas; and Castil-Blaze says that “the waltz which we took again from the Germans in 1795 had been a French dance for four hundred years.” The change, it is true, came upon it during its visit to Germany, hence the theory of its German origin. The first German waltz tune is dated 1770—“Ach! du lieber Augustin.” It was first danced at the Paris opera in 1793, in Gardel’s ballet La Dansomanie. It was introduced to English ballrooms in 1812, when it roused a storm of ridicule and opposition, but it became popular when danced at Almack’s by the emperor Alexander in 1816. The waltz à trois temps has a sliding step in which the movements of the knees play an important part. The tempo is moderate, so as to allow three distinct movements on the three beats of each bar; and the waltz is written in 3-4 time and in eight-bar sentences. Walking up and down the room and occasionally breaking into the step of the dance is not true waltzing, and the habit of pushing one’s partner backwards along the room is an entirely English one. But the dancer must be able to waltz equally well in all directions, pivoting and crossing the feet when necessary in the reverse turn. It need hardly be said that the feet should never leave the floor in the true waltz. Gungl, Waldteufel and the Strauss family may be said to have moulded the modern waltz to its present form by their rhythmical and agreeable compositions. There are variations which include hopping and lurching steps; these are degradations, and foreign to the spirit of the true waltz.

Dancing in today’s society is pretty straightforward, as about five-sixths of most ballroom programs consist of waltzes. The origin of the waltz is a debated topic, with the French, Italians, and Bavarians all claiming credit for its creation. In reality, the waltz, as we know it now, comes from Germany; however, it also has French roots because it's a development of the Volte, which originated from the Lavolta of Provence, one of the oldest French dances. The Lavolta was trendy in the 16th century and a favorite at the Valois court. The Volte danced by Henry III was essentially a Valse à deux pas; Castil-Blaze mentioned that “the waltz we borrowed back from the Germans in 1795 had been a French dance for four hundred years.” It’s true that the waltz changed during its time in Germany, which has led to the belief in its German origin. The first German waltz tune is from 1770—“Ach! du lieber Augustin.” It was first performed at the Paris opera in 1793 during Gardel’s ballet La Dansomanie. It made its way to English ballrooms in 1812, where it faced a wave of mockery and resistance, but it gained popularity after being danced at Almack’s by Emperor Alexander in 1816. The waltz à trois temps has a sliding step where knee movements are crucial. The tempo is moderate, allowing for three distinct movements with each three beats of the bar; the waltz is written in 3-4 time and in eight-bar phrases. Just walking around the room and occasionally breaking into dance steps isn't true waltzing, and the habit of pushing one’s partner backwards while dancing is purely an English trait. However, a dancer should be able to waltz well in all directions, pivoting and crossing the feet when necessary during the reverse turn. It goes without saying that in true waltzing, the feet should never leave the floor. Gungl, Waldteufel, and the Strauss family have shaped the modern waltz into its current format with their rhythmic and pleasant compositions. There are variations that include hopping and lurching steps; these are considered distortions and do not align with the essence of the true waltz.

The Quadrille is of some antiquity, and a dance of this kind was first brought to England from Normandy by William the Conqueror, and was common all over Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. The term quadrille means a kind of card game, and the dance is supposed to be in some way connected with the game. A species of quadrille appeared in a French ballet in 1745, and since that time the dance has gone by that name. Like many other dances, it came from Paris to Almack’s in 1815, and in its modern form was danced in England for the first time by Lady Jersey, Lady Harriet Butler, Lady Susan Ryder and Miss Montgomery, with Count Aldegarde, Mr Montgomery, Mr Harley and Mr Montague. It immediately became popular. It then consisted of very elaborate steps, which in England have been simplified until the degenerate practice has become common of walking through the dance. The quadrille, properly danced, has many of the graces of the minuet. It is often stated that the square dance is of modern French origin. This is incorrect, and probably arises from a mistaken identification of the terms quadrille and square dance. “Dull Sir John” and “Faine I would” were square dances popular in England three hundred years ago.

The Quadrille is quite old, and this type of dance was first brought to England from Normandy by William the Conqueror. It was popular all over Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. The term quadrille refers to a type of card game, and the dance is thought to be somewhat connected to that game. A version of the quadrille appeared in a French ballet in 1745, and since then, the dance has carried that name. Like many other dances, it made its way from Paris to Almack’s in 1815, and in its modern form, it was first danced in England by Lady Jersey, Lady Harriet Butler, Lady Susan Ryder, and Miss Montgomery, alongside Count Aldegarde, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Harley, and Mr. Montague. It quickly gained popularity. Initially, it involved very intricate steps, but in England, these steps have been simplified to the point where it's now common to just walk through the dance. When done properly, the quadrille has many of the elegant qualities of the minuet. It's often said that the square dance is of modern French origin. This is incorrect and likely comes from confusing the terms quadrille and square dance. “Dull Sir John” and “Faine I would” were square dances that were popular in England three hundred years ago.

An account of the country-dance, with the names of some of the old dance-tunes, has been given above. The word is not, as has been supposed, an adaptation of the French contre-danse, neither is the dance itself French in origin. According to the New English Dictionary, contre-danse is a corruption of “country-dance,” possibly due to a peculiar feature of many of such dances, like Sir Roger de Coverley, where the partners are drawn up in lines opposite to each other. The earliest appearance of the French word is in its application to English dances, which are contrasted with the French; thus in the Memoirs of Grammont, Hamilton says: “On quitta les danses françaises pour se mettre aux contre-danses.” The English “country-dances” were introduced into France in the early part of the 18th century and became popular; later French modifications were brought back 800 to England under the French form of the name, and this, no doubt, caused the long-accepted but confused derivation.

An overview of the country dance, including some of the classic dance tunes, has been provided above. The term is not, as has been thought, a variation of the French contre-danse, nor is the dance itself originally French. According to the New English Dictionary, contre-danse is a misinterpretation of “country-dance,” likely because of a distinct characteristic of many of these dances, such as Sir Roger de Coverley, where the partners stand in lines facing each other. The first recorded use of the French word was in reference to English dances, which were set apart from the French ones; for example, in the Memoirs of Grammont, Hamilton states: “On quitta les danses françaises pour se mettre aux contre-danses.” The English “country-dances” were brought into France in the early 18th century and became popular; later, French adaptations returned to England under the French name, which probably led to the long-held but mistaken origin. 800

The Lancers were invented by Laborde in Paris in 1836. They were brought over to England in 1850, and were made fashionable by Madame Sacré at her classes in Hanover Square Rooms. The first four ladies to dance the lancers in England were Lady Georgina Lygon, Lady Jane Fielding, Mdlle. Olga de Lechner and Miss Berkeley.

The Lancers were created by Laborde in Paris in 1836. They were introduced to England in 1850 and became popular thanks to Madame Sacré at her classes in Hanover Square Rooms. The first four women to dance the lancers in England were Lady Georgina Lygon, Lady Jane Fielding, Mdlle. Olga de Lechner, and Miss Berkeley.

The Polka, the chief of the Bohemian national dances, was adopted by Society in 1835 at Prague. Josef Neruda had seen a peasant girl dancing and singing the polka, and had noted down the tune and the steps. From Prague it readily spread to Vienna, and was introduced to Paris by Cellarius, a dancing-master, who gave it at the Odéon in 1840. It took the public by storm, and spread like an infection through England and America. Everything was named after the polka, from public-houses to articles of dress. Mr Punch exerted his wit on the subject weekly, and even The Times complained that its French correspondence was interrupted, since the polka had taken the place of politics in Paris. The true polka has three slightly jumping steps, danced on the first three beats of a four-quaver bar, the last beat of which is employed as a rest while the toe of the unemployed foot is drawn up against the heel of the other.

The Polka, the main dance of the Bohemian national style, was embraced by society in 1835 in Prague. Josef Neruda had seen a peasant girl dancing and singing the polka, and he wrote down the tune and the steps. From Prague, it quickly spread to Vienna and was brought to Paris by Cellarius, a dance teacher, who showcased it at the Odéon in 1840. It captivated the public and spread like wildfire through England and America. Everything was named after the polka, from pubs to clothing items. Mr. Punch made jokes about it weekly, and even The Times complained that its French correspondence was disrupted because the polka had taken over the news instead of politics in Paris. The true polka consists of three slightly bouncing steps, danced on the first three beats of a four-beat measure, with the last beat serving as a pause while the toe of the unused foot is pulled up against the heel of the other foot.

The Galop is strictly speaking a Hungarian dance, which became popular in Paris in 1830. But some kind of a dance corresponding to the galop was always indulged in after Voltes and Contre-danses, as a relief from their grave and constrained measures.

The Galop is technically a Hungarian dance that became popular in Paris in 1830. However, a type of dance similar to the galop has always been enjoyed after Voltes and Contre-danses as a way to lighten up the serious and formal moves.

The Washington Post and several varieties of Barn-dance are of American origin, and became fashionable towards the end of the 19th century.

The Washington Post and various forms of Barn-dance originated in America and gained popularity around the end of the 19th century.

The Polka-Mazurka is extremely popular in Vienna and Budapest, and is a favourite theme with Hungarian composers. The six movements of this dance occupy two bars of 3-4 time, and consist of a mazurka step joined to the polka. It is of Polish origin.

The Polka-Mazurka is really popular in Vienna and Budapest, and it's a favorite among Hungarian composers. The six movements of this dance span two bars of 3-4 time and feature a mazurka step combined with the polka. It originated in Poland.

The Polonaise and Mazurka are both Polish dances, and are still fashionable in Russia and Poland. Every State ball in Russia is opened with the ceremonious Polonaise.

The Polonaise and Mazurka are both Polish dances and are still popular in Russia and Poland. Every state ball in Russia begins with the formal Polonaise.

The Schottische, a kind of modified polka, was “created” by Markowski, who was the proprietor of a famous dancing academy in 1850. The Highland Schottische is a fling. The Fling and Reel are Celtic dances, and form the national dances of Scotland and Denmark. They are complicated measures of a studied and classical order, in which free use is made of the arms and of cries and stampings. The Strathspey is a slow and grandiose modification of the Reel.

The Schottische, a type of modified polka, was “created” by Markowski, who owned a well-known dance academy in 1850. The Highland Schottische is a fling. The Fling and Reel are Celtic dances and are the national dances of Scotland and Denmark. They involve complex movements that are structured and classical, making use of arms, shouts, and stomps. The Strathspey is a slow and impressive version of the Reel.

Sir Roger de Coverley is the only one of the old English social dances which has survived to the present day, and it is frequently danced at the conclusion of the less formal sort of balls. It is a merry and lively game in which all the company take part, men and women facing each other in two long rows. The dancers are constantly changing places in such a way that if the dance is carried to its conclusion everyone will have danced with everyone else. The music was first printed in 1685, and is sometimes written in 2-4 time, sometimes in 6-8 time, and sometimes in 3-9 time.

Sir Roger de Coverley is the only traditional English social dance that has made it to today, and it’s often danced at the end of more casual balls. It’s a fun and energetic dance where everyone participates, with men and women lined up facing each other in two long rows. The dancers continually swap places so that by the end of the dance, everyone has danced with everyone else. The music was first published in 1685 and is sometimes written in 2-4 time, sometimes in 6-8 time, and sometimes in 3-9 time.

The Cotillon is a modern development of the French dance of the same name referred to above. It is an extremely elaborate dance, in which a great many toys and accessories are employed; hundreds of figures may be contrived for it, in which presents, toys, lighted tapers, biscuits, air-balloons and hurdles are used.

The Cotillon is a contemporary version of the French dance that shares its name. It’s a highly detailed dance that incorporates a variety of props and accessories; countless formations can be created for it, using gifts, toys, lit candles, cookies, balloons, and hurdles.

Ballet, &c.—The modern ballet (q.v.) seems to have been first produced on a considerable scale in 1489 at Tortona, before Duke Galeazzo of Milan. It soon became a common amusement on great occasions at the European courts. The ordinary length was five acts, each containing several entrées, and each entrée containing several quadrilles. The accessories of painting, sculpture and movable scenery were employed, and the representation often took place at night. The allegorical, moral and ludicrous ballets were introduced to France by Baïf in the time of Catherine de’ Medici. The complex nature of these exhibitions may be gathered from the title of one played at Turin in 1634—La verità nemica della apparenza, sollevata dal tempo. Of the ludicrous, one of the best known was the Venetian ballet of I a veritá raminga. Now and then, however, a high political aim may be discovered, as in the “Prosperity of the Arms of France,” danced before Richelieu in 1641, or “Religion uniting Great Britain to the rest of the World,” danced at London on the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the elector Frederick. Outside the theatre, the Portuguese revived an ambulatory ballet which was played on the canonization of Carlo Borromeo, and to which they gave the name of the Tyrrhenic Pomp. During this time also the ceremonial ball (with all its elaborate detail of courante, minuet and saraband) was cultivated. The fathers of the church assembled at Trent gave a ball in which they took a part. Masked balls, too, resembling in some respects the Roman Saturnalia, became common towards the end of the 17th century. In France a ball was sometimes diversified by a masquerade, carried on by a limited number of persons in character-costume. Two of the most famous were named “au Sauvage” and “des Sorciers.” In 1715 the regent of France started a system of public balls in the opera-house, which did not succeed. Dancing, also, formed a leading element in the Opéra Français introduced by Quinault. His subjects were chiefly marvellous, drawn from the classical mythologies; and the choral dancing was not merely divertissement, but was intended to assist and enrich the dramatic action of the whole piece.

Ballet, &c.—The modern ballet (see entry) seems to have first been performed on a large scale in 1489 at Tortona, in front of Duke Galeazzo of Milan. It quickly became a popular entertainment at major events in European courts. Typically, it had five acts, with each act featuring several entrées, and each entrée including multiple quadrilles. Visual arts like painting, sculpture, and movable scenery were used, and performances often happened at night. Allegorical, moral, and comedic ballets were brought to France by Baïf during Catherine de’ Medici's time. The intricate nature of these shows can be seen in the title of one performed in Turin in 1634—La verità nemica della apparenza, sollevata dal tempo. Among the comedic ones, a well-known piece was the Venetian ballet I a veritá raminga. Occasionally, a significant political message was evident, such as in “Prosperity of the Arms of France,” which was performed for Richelieu in 1641, or “Religion uniting Great Britain to the rest of the World,” presented in London during Princess Elizabeth’s marriage to Elector Frederick. Outside the theater, the Portuguese revived a walking ballet performed at the canonization of Carlo Borromeo, calling it the Tyrrhenic Pomp. During this period, ceremonial balls, complete with detailed sequences of courante, minuet, and saraband, were also popular. The fathers of the church at Trent held a ball in which they participated. Masked balls, somewhat reminiscent of the Roman Saturnalia, became common towards the end of the 17th century. In France, a ball would sometimes feature a masquerade, performed by a limited number of people in character costumes. Two of the most famous were “au Sauvage” and “des Sorciers.” In 1715, the regent of France initiated a series of public balls at the opera house, which were not successful. Moreover, dancing was a key element in the Opéra Français introduced by Quinault. His stories were mostly fantastical, drawn from classical mythology, and the choral dancing was not just for entertainment but intended to enhance and support the dramatic action of the entire piece.

Musical Gymnastics.—Dancing is an important branch of physical education. Long ago Locke pointed out (Education, §§ 67, 196) that the effects of dancing are not confined to the body; it gives to children, he says, not mere outward gracefulness of motion, but manly thoughts and a becoming confidence. Only lately, however, has the advantage been recognized of making gymnastics attractive by connecting it with what Homer calls “the sweetest and most perfect of human enjoyments.” The practical principle against heavy weights and intense monotonous exertion of particular muscles was thus stated by Samuel Smiles (Physical Education, p. 148):—“The greatest benefit is derived from that exercise which calls into action the greatest number of muscles, and in which the action of these is intermitted at the shortest intervals.” It required only one further step to see how, if light and changing movements were desirable, music would prove a powerful stimulus to gymnastics. It touches the play-impulse, and substitutes a spontaneous flow of energy for the mechanical effort of the will. The force of imitation or contagion, one of the most valuable forces in education, is also much increased by the state of exhilaration into which dancing puts the system. This idea was embodied by Froebel in his Kindergarten plan, and was developed by Jahn and Schreber in Germany, by Dio Lewis in the United States, and by Ling (the author of the Swedish Cure Movement) in Sweden.

Musical Gymnastics.—Dancing is a vital part of physical education. A long time ago, Locke pointed out (Education, §§ 67, 196) that the benefits of dancing extend beyond the physical; it gives children not only graceful movements but also confident and strong thoughts. Recently, however, people have started to recognize the benefits of making gymnastics appealing by linking it to what Homer called “the sweetest and most perfect of human enjoyments.” The practical principle against heavy weights and intense, repetitive exertion of specific muscles was explained by Samuel Smiles (Physical Education, p. 148):—“The greatest benefit comes from exercises that engage the most muscles and have short breaks in their action.” It only took one more step to realize that if light and varied movements were desirable, music could serve as a powerful motivator for gymnastics. It taps into the play impulse and replaces the mechanical effort of willpower with a natural flow of energy. The power of imitation or social influence, one of the most useful forces in education, is also significantly boosted by the excitement that dancing creates in the body. This concept was reflected in Froebel's Kindergarten plan and further developed by Jahn and Schreber in Germany, Dio Lewis in the United States, and Ling (the author of the Swedish Cure Movement) in Sweden.

Authorities.—For the old division of the Ars Gymnastica into palaestrica and saltatoria, and of the latter into cubistica, sphaeristica and orchestica, see the learned work of Hieronymus Mercurialis, De arte Gymnastica (Amsterdam, 1572). Cubistic was the art of throwing somersaults, and is described minutely by Tuccaro in his Trois Dialogues (Paris, 1599). Sphaeristic included several complex games at ball and tilting—the Greek κώρυκος, and the Roman trigonalis and paganica. Orchestic, divided by Plutarch into latio, figura and indicatio, was really imitative dancing, the “silent poetry” of Simonides. The importance of the χειρονομία or hand-movement is indicated by Ovid:—“Si vox est, canta; si mollia brachia, salta.” For further information as to modern dancing, see Rameau’s Le maître à danser (1726); Querlon’s Le triomphe des grâces (1774); Cahousac, La danse ancienne et moderne (1754); Vuillier, History of Dancing (Eng. trans., 1897); Giraudet, Traité de la danse (1900).

Authorities.—For the old classification of the Ars Gymnastica into palaestrica and saltatoria, and the latter into cubistica, sphaeristica, and orchestica, refer to the scholarly work of Hieronymus Mercurialis, De arte Gymnastica (Amsterdam, 1572). Cubistic was the practice of performing somersaults, and it is described in detail by Tuccaro in his Trois Dialogues (Paris, 1599). Sphaeristic included several intricate ball games and tilting—the Greek κώρυκος, and the Roman trigonalis and paganica. Orchestic, which Plutarch divided into latio, figura, and indicatio, was essentially imitative dancing, the “silent poetry” of Simonides. The significance of the gesture or hand movements is highlighted by Ovid:—“If there's a voice, sing; if there are soft arms, dance.” For more details on modern dancing, see Rameau’s Le maître à danser (1726); Querlon’s Le triomphe des grâces (1774); Cahousac, La danse ancienne et moderne (1754); Vuillier, History of Dancing (Eng. trans., 1897); Giraudet, Traité de la danse (1900).

(W. C. S.; A. B. F. Y.)

1 Compare the Chica of South America, the Fandango of Spain, and the Angrismene or la Fachée of modern Greece. See also Romaunt de la rose, v. 776.

1 Compare the Chica from South America, the Fandango from Spain, and the Angrismene or la Fachée from modern Greece. Also, see Romaunt de la rose, v. 776.

2 The Greek καρπαία represented the surprise by robbers of a warrior ploughing a field. The gymnopaedic dances imitated the sterner sports of the palaestra.

2 The Greek καρπαία depicted the shock of a warrior caught off guard by thieves while working in the fields. The gymnopaedic dances mirrored the more serious competitions of the palaestra.

3 The Greek Lenaea and Dionysia had a distinct reference to the seasons.

3 The Greek Lenaea and Dionysia were clearly linked to the seasons.

4 The Pantomimus was an outgrowth from the canticum or choral singing of the older comedies and fabulae Atellanae.

4 The Pantomimus developed from the canticum or choral singing found in earlier comedies and fabulae Atellanae.

5 “My heart flew to thy breast. Thou didst cut its wings, so that it remained there. And now it has waxed daring, and will stay with thee for evermore.”

5 “My heart soared to your chest. You clipped its wings, so it stayed there. And now it has grown bold, and will stay with you forever.”

6 “A star is lost and appears not in the sky; in thy face it has set itself; on thy brow it shines.”

6 “A star is lost and doesn't show up in the sky; it has set itself on your face; it shines on your brow.”


DANCOURT, FLORENT CARTON (1661-1725), French dramatist and actor, was born at Fontainebleau on the 1st of November 1661. He belonged to a family of rank, and his parents entrusted his education to Père de la Rue, a Jesuit, who made earnest efforts to induce him to join the order. But he had no religious vocation and proceeded to study law. He practised at the bar for some time, but his marriage to the daughter of the comedian François Lenoir de la Thorillière led him to become an actor, and in 1685, in spite of the strong opposition of his family, he 801 appeared at the Théâtre Français. His gifts as a comedian gave him immediate and marked success, both with the public and with his fellow actors. He was the spokesman of his company on occasions of state, and in this capacity he frequently appeared before Louis XIV., who treated him with great favour. One of his most famous impersonations was Alceste in the Misanthrope of Molière. His first play, Le Notaire obligeant, produced in 1685, was well received. La Désolation des joueuses (1687) was still more successful. Le Chevalier à la mode (1687) is generally regarded as his best work, though his claim to original authorship in this and some other cases has been disputed. In Le Chevalier à la mode appears the bourgeoise infatuated with the desire to be an aristocrat. The type is developed in Les Bourgeoises à la mode (1692) and Les Bourgeoises de qualité (1700). Dancourt was a prolific author, and produced some sixty plays in all. Some years before his death he terminated his career both as an actor and as an author by retiring to his château at Courcelles le Roi, in Berry, where he employed himself in making a poetical translation of the Psalms and in writing a sacred tragedy. He died on the 7th of December 1725. The plays of Dancourt are faithful descriptions of the manners of the time, and as such have real historical value. The characters are drawn with a realistic touch that led to his being styled by Charles Palissot the Teniers of comedy. He is very successful in his delineation of low life, and especially of the peasantry. The dialogue is sparkling, witty and natural. Many of the incidents of his plots were derived from actual occurrences in the “fast” and scandalous life of the period, and several of his characters were drawn from well-known personages of the day. Most of the plays incline to the type of farce rather than of pure comedy. Voltaire defined his talent in the words: “Ce que Regnard était à l’égard de Molière dans la haute comédie, le comédien Dancourt l’était dans la farce.”

DANCOURT, FLORENT CARTON (1661-1725), a French playwright and actor, was born in Fontainebleau on November 1, 1661. He came from a noble family, and his parents placed him under the care of Père de la Rue, a Jesuit, who tried hard to convince him to join the order. However, he had no religious calling and opted to study law. He practiced as a lawyer for a while, but after marrying the daughter of the actor François Lenoir de la Thorillière, he decided to become an actor. In 1685, despite strong family opposition, he made his debut at the Théâtre Français. His comedic talent garnered him immediate fame, both with the audience and his peers. He often represented his company on state occasions, appearing frequently before Louis XIV., who showed him great favor. One of his most well-known roles was Alceste in Molière's Misanthrope. His first play, Le Notaire obligeant, premiered in 1685 and received positive reviews. La Désolation des joueuses (1687) was even more successful. Le Chevalier à la mode (1687) is widely considered his best work, although there is some debate over his originality in this and other pieces. In Le Chevalier à la mode, he presents the character of a middle-class woman obsessed with becoming part of the aristocracy, a concept further explored in Les Bourgeoises à la mode (1692) and Les Bourgeoises de qualité (1700). Dancourt was a prolific writer, producing around sixty plays in total. A few years before his death, he ended his career as both an actor and a playwright by retiring to his château at Courcelles le Roi, in Berry, where he worked on a poetic translation of the Psalms and wrote a sacred tragedy. He died on December 7, 1725. Dancourt's plays offer accurate portrayals of the social customs of his time, providing significant historical insight. His characters are depicted with a realistic style, earning him the nickname from Charles Palissot of the Teniers of comedy. He excelled in portraying the lower classes, particularly the peasantry. The dialogue is lively, witty, and natural. Much of his plotlines were inspired by real events from the scandalous and vibrant society of his era, and several characters were based on well-known figures of the time. Most of his works tend more toward farce than pure comedy. Voltaire summed up his talent by saying, “What Regnard was to Molière in high comedy, comedian Dancourt was to farce.”

His two daughters, Manon and Marie Anne (Mimi), both obtained success on the stage of the Théâtre Français.

His two daughters, Manon and Marie Anne (Mimi), both achieved success on the stage of the Théâtre Français.

The complete works of Dancourt were published in 1760 (12 vols. 12mo). An edition of his Théâtre choisi, with a preface by F. Sarcey, appeared in 1884.

The complete works of Dancourt were published in 1760 (12 vols. 12mo). An edition of his Théâtre choisi, with a preface by F. Sarcey, was released in 1884.


DANDELION (Taraxacum officinale), a perennial herb belonging to the natural order Compositae. The plant has a wide range, being found in Europe, Central Asia, North America, and the Arctic regions, and also in the south temperate zone. The leaves form a spreading rosette on the very short stem; they are smooth, of a bright shining green, sessile, and tapering downwards. The name dandelion is derived from the French dent-de-lion, an appellation given on account of the tooth-like lobes of the leaves. The long tap-root has a simple or many-headed rhizome; it is black externally, and is very difficult of extirpation. The flower-stalks are smooth, brittle, leafless, hollow, and very numerous. The flowers bloom from April till August, and remain open from five or six in the morning to eight or nine at night. The flower-heads are of a golden yellow, and reach 1½ to 2 in. in width; the florets are all strap-shaped. The fruits are olive or dull yellow in colour, and are each surmounted by a long beak, on which rests a pappus of delicate white hairs, which occasions the ready dispersal of the fruit by the wind; each fruit contains one seed. The globes formed by the plumed fruits are nearly two inches in diameter. The involucre consists of an outer spreading (or reflexed) and an inner and erect row of bracts. In all parts of the plant a milky juice is contained, which has a somewhat complex composition. The chief constituent is taraxacin, a neutral principle. In addition the juice contains taraxacerin (derived from the former), asparagin, inulin, resins and salts. An extract (dose 5-15 grains), a liquid extract (dose ½-1 drachm) and a succus (dose 1-2 drachms) of the root are all used medicinally. For the purposes formerly recognized taraxacum is now never used, but it has been shown to possess definite cholagogue properties, and may therefore be prescribed along with ammonium chloride in cases of hepatic constipation, which it very constantly relieves. The root—which is the medicinal product—is most bitter from March to July, but the milky juice it contains is less abundant in the summer than in the autumn. For this reason, the extract and succus are usually prepared during the months of September and October. After a frost a change takes place in the root, which loses its bitterness to a large extent. In the dried state the root will not keep well, being quickly attacked by insects. Externally it is brown and wrinkled, internally white, with a yellow centre and concentric paler rings. It is two inches to a foot long, and about a quarter to half an inch in diameter. The leaves are bitter, but are sometimes eaten as a salad; they serve as food for silkworms when mulberry leaves are not to be had. The root is roasted as a substitute for coffee. Several varieties of the dandelion are recognized by botanists; they differ in the degree and mode of cutting of the leaf-margin and the erect or spreading character of the outer series of bracts. The variety palustre, which affects boggy situations, and flowers in late summer and autumn, has nearly entire leaves, and the outer bracts of its involucre are erect.

DANDELION (Taraxacum officinale) is a perennial herb that belongs to the Compositae family. This plant has a broad range, found in Europe, Central Asia, North America, the Arctic, and the southern temperate zone. It features leaves that form a spreading rosette on a very short stem; these leaves are smooth, bright green, attached directly to the stem, and taper downwards. The name "dandelion" comes from the French term dent-de-lion, referring to the tooth-like lobes on the leaves. The long taproot has a simple or branched structure and is externally black and hard to remove. The flower stalks are smooth, brittle, leafless, hollow, and abundant. Flowers bloom from April to August and stay open from five or six in the morning until eight or nine at night. The flower heads are golden yellow, measuring 1½ to 2 inches across, with all florets shaped like straps. The fruits are olive or dull yellow and have a long beak topped with a fluffy tuft of delicate white hairs, which allow the wind to easily disperse them; each fruit contains a single seed. The globes formed by the fluffy fruits are nearly two inches in diameter. The involucre consists of an outer spreading (or reflexed) row and an inner erect row of bracts. The entire plant contains a milky juice with a somewhat complex composition. The primary component is taraxacin, a neutral substance. Additionally, the juice has taraxacerin (derived from the taraxacin), asparagin, inulin, resins, and salts. Extracts (5-15 grains), liquid extracts (½-1 drachm), and succus (1-2 drachms) of the root are used for medicinal purposes. Although it is no longer used for previously recognized purposes, taraxacum has been shown to have clear cholagogue properties and can be prescribed with ammonium chloride for liver-related constipation, which it reliably alleviates. The root—which is the medicinal part—is most bitter from March to July, although the milky juice it contains is less abundant in summer than in autumn. For this reason, extracts and succus are typically prepared in September and October. After a frost, the root undergoes a change and loses much of its bitterness. Dried roots do not store well, as they are quickly infested by insects. Externally, the root is brown and wrinkled, while internally it is white with a yellow center and concentric lighter rings. It is between two inches to a foot long and about a quarter to half an inch in diameter. The leaves are bitter but are sometimes consumed as a salad; they can be used as food for silkworms when mulberry leaves are unavailable. The root can be roasted as a coffee substitute. Several varieties of dandelion are recognized by botanists, differing in the degree and shape of the leaf margins and whether the outer bracts are erect or spreading. The variety palustre, which prefers boggy areas and flowers in late summer and autumn, has almost entire leaves, and its involucre's outer bracts are erect.

Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).
1, Unopened head; 2, ripe head from which all the fruits except two have been removed; 3, one floret, enlarged; 4, one fruit.

DANDOLO, the name of one of the most illustrious patrician families of Venice, of which the earliest recorded member was one of the electors of the first doge (A.D. 697). The Dandolo gave to Venice four doges; of these the first and most famous was Enrico Dandolo (c. 1120-1205), elected on the 1st of January 1193 (more Veneto, 1192). He had distinguished himself in various military enterprises and diplomatic negotiations in the course of an active career, and although over seventy years old and of very weak sight (the story that he had been made blind by the emperor Manuel Comnenus while he was at Constantinople is a legend), he proved a most energetic and capable ruler. His first care was to re-establish Venetian authority over the Dalmatians who had rebelled with the king of Hungary’s protection, but he failed to capture Zara, owing to the arrival of the Pisan fleet, and although the latter was defeated by the Venetians, the undertaking was suspended. In the meanwhile the situation in the East was becoming critical. The Eastern emperor Isaac II. Angelus had been deposed, imprisoned, and blinded by his 802 brother Alexius, who usurped the throne. The new emperor proved unfriendly to the Venetians and made difficulties about renewing their privileges. In the West a new crusade to the Holy Land was in preparation, and the crusaders sent ambassadors, one of whom was Villehardouin, the historian of the expedition, to ask the Venetians to give them passage and means of transport (1201). After much deliberation the republic agreed to transport 4500 horse and 29,000 foot to Palestine with provisions for one year, for a sum of 85,000 marks; in addition 50 Venetian galleys would be provided free of charge, while Venice was to receive half the conquests made by the crusaders. But as the time agreed upon for the departure approached, it appeared that the crusaders had not the money to pay the stipulated advance. Dandolo then proposed that if they helped him to reduce Zara payment might be deferred. Some of the crusaders disapproved of this attack on a Christian city, but the majority, only too glad of an opportunity for plunder, willingly agreed. The expedition sailed on the 8th of October 1202, three hundred sail in all, with the aged Dandolo himself in command. Zara was taken and pillaged, for which the Venetians were severely reprimanded by the pope. But new possibilities of conquest were now opened up at the suggestion of Alexius, the son of the deposed emperor Isaac. He promised the crusaders that if they went first to Constantinople and re-instated Isaac, the latter would maintain them for a year, contribute 10,000 men and 200,000 marks for the expedition to Egypt, and subject the Eastern to the Western Church. The proposal was accepted, largely owing to the influence of Dandolo, who saw in it a means for further extending the dominions and commerce of the Venetians. After wintering at Zara the fleet set sail on the 7th of April 1203, and on the 23rd of June anchored in the Bosporus. After long parleys the city was attacked by land and sea on the 17th of July (the fleet being commanded by Dandolo) and taken by storm. The emperor Alexius fled, and Isaac reoccupied the throne, but, although grateful to the crusaders, he was not disposed to fulfil the promises made by his son. Tumults between crusaders and Greeks arose, and the people of the city, excited by a certain Alexis Murzuphlus, murmured at the new taxes which were imposed on them. A revolt broke out, and an officer named Nicholas Canabus was placed on the throne; Prince Alexius was strangled by order of Murzuphlus, Isaac died of the shock, Murzuphlus imprisoned Canabus and made himself emperor (Alexius V.). The crusaders thereupon attacked Constantinople a second time (12th of April 1204), and after a desperate struggle captured the city, which they subjected to hideous carnage. Immense booty was secured, the Venetians obtaining among other treasures the four bronze horses which adorn the façade of St Mark’s. The Eastern empire was abolished, and a feudal Latin empire erected in its stead. The leaders of the crusaders then met to elect an emperor. Dandolo was one of the candidates, but Count Baldwin of Flanders was elected and crowned on the 23rd of May. The Venetians were given Crete and several other islands and ports in the Levant, which formed an uninterrupted chain from Venice to the Black Sea, a large part of Constantinople (whence the doge assumed the title of “lord of a quarter and a half of Romania”), and many valuable privileges. But hardly had the new state been established when various provinces rose in rebellion and the Bulgarians invaded Thrace. A Latin army was defeated by them at Adrianople (April 1205), and the emperor himself was captured and killed, the fragments of the force being saved only by Dandolo’s prowess. But he was now old and ill, and on the 23rd of June 1205 he died. He certainly consolidated Venice’s dominion in the East and increased its commercial prosperity to a very high degree. But the policy he pursued in turning the crusaders against Constantinople, in order to promote the interests of the republic, while serving to break up the Greek empire, created in its place a Latin state that was far too feeble to withstand the onslaught of Greek national feeling and Orthodox fanaticism; at the same time the Greeks were greatly weakened and their power of resisting the Turks consequently lessened. This paved the way for the Turkish invasion of Europe, which proved an unmixed calamity for all Christendom, Venice included.

DANDOLO, was one of the most prominent patrician families of Venice, with the earliest recorded member being one of the electors of the first doge (A.D. 697). The Dandolo family provided Venice with four doges; the first and most notable was Enrico Dandolo (c. 1120-1205), who was elected on January 1, 1193 (more Veneto, 1192). He made a name for himself in various military endeavors and diplomatic negotiations throughout his active career. Despite being over seventy years old and visually impaired (the story that he was blinded by Emperor Manuel Comnenus while in Constantinople is a myth), he proved to be a very dynamic and effective ruler. His primary concern was to restore Venetian control over the Dalmatians, who had revolted with the protection of the King of Hungary. However, he was unable to capture Zara due to the arrival of the Pisan fleet. Although the Venetians defeated the Pisans, the campaign was ultimately postponed. Meanwhile, the situation in the East became dire. The Eastern emperor Isaac II. Angelus had been deposed, imprisoned, and blinded by his brother Alexius, who seized the throne. The new emperor was unfriendly towards the Venetians and created obstacles in renewing their privileges. In the West, a new crusade to the Holy Land was being organized, and the crusaders sent ambassadors, including Villehardouin, the expedition's historian, to request passage and transport from the Venetians (1201). After much discussion, the republic agreed to transport 4,500 horses and 29,000 infantry to Palestine along with a year’s worth of supplies for 85,000 marks; moreover, 50 Venetian galleys would be provided at no cost, and Venice would receive half of the conquests made by the crusaders. However, as the agreed departure date approached, it became clear that the crusaders lacked the funds to pay the required advance. Dandolo then suggested that if they helped him reduce Zara, the payment could be postponed. Some of the crusaders opposed the attack on a Christian city, but the majority, eager for an opportunity for plunder, readily agreed. The expedition set out on October 8, 1202, with a total of three hundred ships, led by the elderly Dandolo. Zara was captured and looted, leading to a strong rebuke from the pope. However, new opportunities for conquest arose when Alexius, the son of the deposed emperor Isaac, suggested that if the crusaders went first to Constantinople and restored Isaac, he would support them for a year, provide 10,000 men, and 200,000 marks for the expedition to Egypt, as well as bring the Eastern Church under the authority of the Western Church. The proposal was accepted, largely influenced by Dandolo, who saw it as a way to expand Venetian territories and commerce. After spending the winter in Zara, the fleet departed on April 7, 1203, and by June 23, it was anchored in the Bosporus. Following lengthy negotiations, the city was attacked both by land and sea on July 17 (with Dandolo in command of the fleet) and was captured in a violent assault. Emperor Alexius fled, and Isaac took back the throne, but although he was grateful to the crusaders, he was not inclined to fulfill his son’s promises. Tensions arose between the crusaders and the Greeks, and the citizens of the city, incited by a man named Alexis Murzuphlus, complained about new taxes imposed on them. A revolt ensued, and an officer named Nicholas Canabus ascended the throne; Prince Alexius was executed by Murzuphlus, Isaac died from the shock, and Murzuphlus imprisoned Canabus, declaring himself emperor (Alexius V.). The crusaders then launched a second attack on Constantinople (April 12, 1204), and after fierce fighting, they captured the city, resulting in horrific massacres. Immense riches were gained, including the four bronze horses now adorning St. Mark's façade. The Eastern empire was dismantled, and a Latin empire was established in its place. The leaders of the crusaders then convened to elect an emperor. Dandolo was among the candidates, but Count Baldwin of Flanders was elected and crowned on May 23. The Venetians were granted Crete and several other islands and ports in the Levant, creating an uninterrupted link from Venice to the Black Sea, a significant portion of Constantinople (from which the doge took the title of “lord of a quarter and a half of Romania”), and numerous valuable privileges. However, barely had the new state been formed than various provinces rebelled, and the Bulgarians invaded Thrace. A Latin army was defeated by them at Adrianople (April 1205), and the emperor himself was captured and killed, with the remnants of the force saved only thanks to Dandolo's efforts. Nonetheless, he was now old and unwell, and he died on June 23, 1205. He had certainly strengthened Venice’s dominion in the East and significantly enhanced its commercial prosperity. However, the strategy he pursued of turning the crusaders against Constantinople to advance the republic's interests ultimately resulted in the fragmentation of the Greek empire, creating a Latin state that was far too weak to endure the burgeoning Greek nationalism and Orthodox fervor. Meanwhile, the Greeks were significantly weakened, diminishing their ability to resist the Turks, which set the stage for the Turkish invasion of Europe—an event that proved disastrous for all of Christendom, including Venice.

Enrico Dandolo’s sons distinguished themselves in the public service, and his grandson Giovanni was doge from 1280 to 1289. The latter’s son Andrea commanded the Venetian fleet in the war against Genoa in 1294, and, having been defeated and taken prisoner, he was so overwhelmed with shame that he committed suicide by beating his head against the mast (according to Andrea Navagero). Francesco Dandolo, also known as Dandolo Cane, was doge from 1329 to 1339. During his reign the Venetians went to war with Martino della Scala, lord of Verona, with the result that they occupied Treviso and otherwise extended their possessions on the terra firma. Andrea Dandolo (1307/10-1354), the last doge of the family, reigned from 1343 to 1354. He had been the first Venetian noble to take a degree at the university of Padua, where he had also been professor of jurisprudence. The terrible plague of 1348, wars with Genoa, against whom the great naval victory of Lojera was won in 1353, many treaties, and the subjugation of the seventh revolt of Zara, are the chief events of his reign. The poet Petrarch, who was the doge’s intimate friend, was sent to Venice on a peace mission by Giovanni Visconti, lord of Milan. “Just, incorruptible, full of zeal and of love for his country, and at the same time learned, of rare eloquence, wise, affable, and humane,” is the poet’s verdict on Andrea Dandolo (Varior. epist. xix.). Dandolo died on the 7th of September 1354. He is chiefly famous as a historian, and his Annals to the year 1280 are one of the chief sources of Venetian history for that period; they have been published by Muratori (Rer. Ital. Script. tom. xxi.). He also had a new code of laws compiled (issued in 1346) in addition to the statute of Jacopo Tiepolo.

Enrico Dandolo's sons made a name for themselves in public service, and his grandson Giovanni served as doge from 1280 to 1289. Giovanni's son Andrea led the Venetian fleet in the war against Genoa in 1294, but after being defeated and captured, he was so consumed by shame that he committed suicide by banging his head against the mast (according to Andrea Navagero). Francesco Dandolo, also known as Dandolo Cane, was doge from 1329 to 1339. During his leadership, the Venetians went to war with Martino della Scala, the lord of Verona, resulting in the occupation of Treviso and the expansion of their territory on the terra firma. Andrea Dandolo (1307/10-1354), the last doge from the family, ruled from 1343 to 1354. He was the first Venetian noble to earn a degree at the University of Padua, where he also served as a professor of law. The devastating plague of 1348, wars with Genoa—including the significant naval victory at Lojera in 1353, numerous treaties, and the suppression of the seventh revolt in Zara—were the main events of his reign. The poet Petrarch, a close friend of the doge, was sent to Venice on a peace mission by Giovanni Visconti, the lord of Milan. The poet described Andrea Dandolo as “just, incorruptible, full of zeal and love for his country, while also being learned, eloquent, wise, affable, and humane” (Varior. epist. xix.). Dandolo passed away on September 7, 1354. He is primarily known as a historian, and his Annals up to the year 1280 are a key source for Venetian history during that time; they have been published by Muratori (Rer. Ital. Script. tom. xxi.). He also had a new code of laws compiled (issued in 1346) in addition to the statute of Jacopo Tiepolo.

Another well-known member of this family was Silvestro Dandolo (1796-1866), son of Girolamo Dandolo, who was the last admiral of the Venetian republic and died an Austrian admiral in 1847. Silvestro was an Italian patriot and took part in the revolution of 1848.

Another well-known member of this family was Silvestro Dandolo (1796-1866), son of Girolamo Dandolo, who was the last admiral of the Venetian republic and died as an Austrian admiral in 1847. Silvestro was an Italian patriot and participated in the revolution of 1848.

Bibliography.—S. Romanin, Storia documentata di Venezia (Venice, 1853); among more recent books H. Kretschmayr’s excellent Geschichte von Venedig (Gotha, 1905) should be consulted: it contains a bibliography of the authorities and all the latest researches and discoveries; C. Cipolla and G. Monticolo have published many essays and editions of chronicles in the Archivio Veneto, and the “Fonti per la Storia d’Italia,” in the Istituto storico italiano; H. Simonsfeld has written a life of Andrea Dandolo in German (Munich, 1876).

References.—S. Romanin, Storia documentata di Venezia (Venice, 1853); among more recent books, H. Kretschmayr’s excellent Geschichte von Venedig (Gotha, 1905) should be consulted: it includes a bibliography of sources and all the latest research and findings; C. Cipolla and G. Monticolo have published numerous essays and editions of chronicles in the Archivio Veneto, and the “Fonti per la Storia d’Italia,” in the Istituto storico italiano; H. Simonsfeld has written a life of Andrea Dandolo in German (Munich, 1876).

(L. V.*)

DANDOLO, VINCENZO, Count (1758-1819), Italian chemist and agriculturist, was born at Venice, of good family, though not of the same house as the famous doges, and began his career as a physician. He was a prominent opponent of the oligarchical party in the revolution which took place on the approach of Napoleon; and he was one of the envoys sent to seek the protection of the French. When the request was refused, and Venice was placed under Austria, he removed to Milan, where he was made member of the great council. In 1799, on the invasion of the Russians and the overthrow of the Cisalpine republic, Dandolo retired to Paris, where, in the same year, he published his treatise Les Hommes nouveaux, ou moyen d’opérer une régénération nouvelle. But he soon after returned to the neighbourhood of Milan, to devote himself to scientific agriculture. In 1805 Napoleon made him governor of Dalmatia, with the title of provéditeur général, in which position Dandolo distinguished himself by his efforts to remove the wretchedness and idleness of the people, and to improve the country by draining the pestilential marshes and introducing better methods of agriculture. When, in 1809, Dalmatia was re-annexed to the Illyrian provinces, Dandolo returned to Venice, having received as his reward from the French emperor the title of count and several other distinctions. He died in his native city on the 13th of December 1819.

DANDOLO, VINCENZO, Count (1758-1819), Italian chemist and agriculturalist, was born in Venice to a respectable family, although not from the same lineage as the famous doges. He started his career as a physician. He was a key opponent of the oligarchical party during the revolution that arose with Napoleon's arrival, and he was one of the envoys sent to seek French protection. When the request was denied, and Venice came under Austrian control, he moved to Milan, where he joined the great council. In 1799, following the Russian invasion and the fall of the Cisalpine republic, Dandolo retreated to Paris, where he published his treatise Les Hommes nouveaux, ou moyen d’opérer une régénération nouvelle. Shortly after, he returned to the Milan area to focus on scientific agriculture. In 1805, Napoleon appointed him governor of Dalmatia with the title of provéditeur général, during which he worked hard to alleviate the suffering and laziness of the people, improving the region by draining unhealthy marshes and introducing better farming techniques. When, in 1809, Dalmatia was re-annexed to the Illyrian provinces, Dandolo returned to Venice, where he received the title of count and other honors from the French emperor. He passed away in his hometown on December 13, 1819.

Dandolo published in Italian several treatises on agriculture, vine-cultivation, and the rearing of cattle and sheep; a work on silk-worms, which was translated into French by Fontanelle; a work on the discoveries in chemistry which were made in the last 803 quarter of the 18th century (published 1796); and translations of several of the best French works on chemistry.

Dandolo published several treatises in Italian about agriculture, grape-growing, and raising cattle and sheep; a book on silk-worms that Fontanelle translated into French; a book about the discoveries in chemistry made in the last 803 quarter of the 18th century (published in 1796); and translations of some of the best French works on chemistry.


DANDY, a word of uncertain origin which about 1813-1816 became a London colloquialism for the exquisite or fop of the period. It seems to have been in use on the Scottish border at the end of the 18th century, its full form, it is suggested, being “Jack-a-Dandy,” which from 1659 had a sense much like its later one. It is probably ultimately derived from the French dandin, “a ninny or booby,” but a more direct derivation was suggested at the time of the uprise of the Regency dandies. In The Northampton Mercury, under date of the 17th of April 1819, occurs the following: “Origin of the word ‘dandy.’ This term, which has been recently applied to a species of reptile very common in the metropolis, appears to have arisen from a small silver coin struck by King Henry VII., of little value, called a dandiprat; and hence Bishop Fleetwood observes the term is applied to worthless and contemptible persons.”

DANDY, is a word of uncertain origin that became a London slang term for the stylish or foppish people of the time around 1813-1816. It seems to have been used along the Scottish border at the end of the 18th century, with its full form possibly being “Jack-a-Dandy,” which had a meaning similar to the later usage since 1659. It probably ultimately comes from the French dandin, meaning “a fool or simpleton,” but a more direct origin was suggested when the Regency dandies emerged. In The Northampton Mercury, dated April 17, 1819, it states: “Origin of the word ‘dandy.’ This term, which has recently been used to describe a type of common reptile in the city, seems to have come from a small silver coin minted by King Henry VII., which had little value and was called a dandiprat; thus, Bishop Fleetwood notes that the term is used for worthless and contemptible people.”

It was Beau Brummel, the high-priest of fashion, who gave dandyism its great vogue. But before his day foppery in dress had become something more than the personal eccentricity which it had been in the Stuart days and earlier. About the middle of the 18th century was founded the Macaroni Club. This was a band of young men of rank who had visited Italy and sought to introduce the southern elegances of manner and dress into England. The Macaronis gained their name from their introduction of the Italian dish to English tables, and were at their zenith about 1772, when their costume is described as “white silk breeches, very tight coat and vest with enormous white neckcloths, white silk stockings and diamond-buckled red-heeled shoes.” For some time the moving spirit of the club was Charles James Fox. It was with the advent of Brummel, however, that the cult of dandyism became a social force. Beau Brummel was supreme dictator in matters of dress, and the prince regent is said to have wept when he disapproved of the cut of the royal coat. Around the Beau collected a band of young men whose insolent and affected manners made them universally unpopular. Their chief glory was their clothes. They wore coats of blue or brown cloth with brass buttons, the coat-tails almost touching the heels. Their trousers were buckskin, so tight that it is said they “could only be taken off as an eel would be divested of his skin.” A pair of highly-polished Hessian boots, a waistcoat buttoned incredibly tight so as to produce a small waist, and opening at the breast to exhibit the frilled shirt and cravat, completed the costume of the true dandy. Upon the Beau’s disgrace and ruin, Lord Alvanley was regarded as leader of the dandies and “first gentleman in England.” Though in many ways a worthier man than Brummel, his vanity exposed him to much derision, and he fought a duel on Wimbledon Common with Morgan O’Connell, who, in the House of Commons, had called him a “bloated buffoon.” After 1825 “dandy” lost its invidious meaning, and came to be applied generally to those who were neat in dress rather than to those guilty of effeminacy.

It was Beau Brummel, the high priest of fashion, who made dandyism popular. But before his time, flashy dressing had become more than just a personal quirk as it had been during the Stuart era and before that. Around the mid-18th century, the Macaroni Club was established. This group of young noblemen had traveled to Italy and aimed to bring the southern styles of manners and clothing back to England. The Macaronis got their name from their introduction of the Italian dish to English dining, reaching their peak around 1772, when their style was described as “white silk breeches, very tight coat and vest with enormous white neckcloths, white silk stockings and diamond-buckled red-heeled shoes.” For some time, Charles James Fox was the driving force behind the club. However, it was Beau Brummel’s arrival that turned dandyism into a social phenomenon. Beau Brummel was the ultimate authority on fashion, and the prince regent was said to have cried when he didn’t approve of the cut of the royal coat. Surrounding the Beau was a group of young men whose arrogant and pretentious behavior made them generally disliked. Their main pride was their clothing. They wore blue or brown cloth coats with brass buttons, the coat-tails nearly brushing the ground. Their trousers were made of buckskin and fit so snugly that it was said they “could only be taken off like an eel shedding its skin.” Completing the true dandy’s outfit were a pair of highly-polished Hessian boots, a waistcoat fastened so tightly it created a small waist, and an open breast to show off the frilled shirt and cravat. After Beau’s fall from grace, Lord Alvanley became known as the leader of the dandies and the “first gentleman in England.” Although he was in many ways a better man than Brummel, his vanity made him a target of ridicule, and he fought a duel on Wimbledon Common with Morgan O’Connell, who had called him a “bloated buffoon” in the House of Commons. After 1825, “dandy” lost its negative connotation and started to refer generally to those who dressed neatly rather than those seen as effeminate.

See Barbey D’Aurevilly, Du dandysme et de G. Brummel (Paris, 1887).

See Barbey D’Aurevilly, Du dandysme et de G. Brummel (Paris, 1887).


DANEGELD, an English national tax originally levied by Æthelred II. (the Unready) as a means of raising the tribute which was the price of the temporary cessation of the Danish ravages. This expedient of buying off the invader was first adopted in 991 ou the advice of certain great men of the kingdom. It was repeated in 994, 1002, 1007 and 1012. With the accession of the Danish king Canute, the original raison d’être of the tax ceased to exist, but it continued to be levied, though for a different purpose, assuming now the character of an occasional war-tax. It was exceedingly burdensome, and its abolition by Edward the Confessor in 1051 was welcomed as a great relief. William the Conqueror revived it immediately after his accession, as a convenient method of national taxation, and it was with the object of facilitating its collection that he ordered the compilation of Domesday Book. It continued to be levied until 1163, in which year the name Danegeld appears for the last time in the Rolls. Its place was taken by other imposts of similar character but different name.

DANEGELD, was an English national tax originally imposed by Æthelred II (the Unready) as a way to gather tribute to stop the Danish invasions temporarily. This strategy of paying off the invaders was first adopted in 991 on the advice of some of the kingdom's leading figures. It was repeated in 994, 1002, 1007, and 1012. When the Danish king Canute came to power, the original reason for the tax was no longer relevant, but it continued to be collected, now serving as an occasional war tax. It was very burdensome, and its abolition by Edward the Confessor in 1051 was seen as a major relief. William the Conqueror reinstated it right after he took the throne, viewing it as an effective way to tax the nation, and he ordered the creation of Domesday Book to help with its collection. It was collected until 1163, the year the term Danegeld last appeared in the Rolls. It was replaced by other taxes of a similar nature but with different names.


DANELAGH, the name given to those districts in the north and north-east of England which were settled by Danes and other Scandinavian invaders during the period of the Viking invasions. The real settlement of England by Danes began in the year 866 with the appearance of a large army in East Anglia, which turned north in the following year. The Danes captured York and overthrew the Northumbrian kingdom, setting up a puppet king of their own. They encamped in Nottingham in 868, and Northern Mercia was soon in their hands; in 870 Edmund, king of the East Anglians, fell before them. During the next few years they maintained their hold on Mercia, and we have at this time coins minted in London with the inscription “Alfdene rex,” the name of the Danish leader. In the winter of 874-875 they advanced as far north as the Tyne, and at the same time Cambridge was occupied. In the meantime the great struggle with Alfred the Great was being carried on. This was terminated by the peace of Wedmore in 878, when the Danes withdrew from Wessex and settled finally in East Anglia under their king Guthrum. This peace was finally and definitely ratified in the document known as the peace of Alfred and Guthrum, which is probably to be referred to the year 880. The peace determined the boundary of Guthrum’s East Anglian kingdom. According to the terms of the agreement the boundary was to run along the Thames estuary to the mouth of the Lea (a few miles east of London), then up the Lea to its source near Leighton Buzzard, then due north to Bedford, then eastwards up the Ouse to Watling Street somewhere near Fenny or Stony Stratford. From this point the boundary is left undefined, perhaps because the kingdoms of Alfred and Guthrum ceased to be conterminous here, though if Northamptonshire was included in the kingdom of Guthrum, as seems likely, the boundary must be carried a few miles along Watling Street. Thus Northern Mercia, East Anglia, the greater part of Essex and Northumbria were handed over to the Danes and henceforth constitute the district known as the Danelagh.

DANELAGH, is the term used for the areas in the north and northeast of England that were settled by Danes and other Scandinavian invaders during the Viking invasions. The actual settlement of England by the Danes began in 866 when a large army appeared in East Anglia, then moved north the following year. The Danes captured York and toppled the Northumbrian kingdom, installing a puppet king of their choosing. They set up camp in Nottingham in 868, and soon Northern Mercia was under their control; in 870, Edmund, the king of the East Anglians, fell to them. Over the next few years, they kept their grip on Mercia, and during this period, coins minted in London featured the inscription “Alfdene rex,” the name of the Danish leader. In the winter of 874-875, they advanced as far north as the Tyne while also occupying Cambridge. Meanwhile, the major conflict with Alfred the Great was underway. This conflict ended with the peace of Wedmore in 878, when the Danes pulled back from Wessex and settled in East Anglia under their king Guthrum. This peace was officially confirmed in a document known as the peace of Alfred and Guthrum, likely established in 880. The agreement defined the boundary of Guthrum’s East Anglian kingdom. According to the terms, the boundary was to follow the Thames estuary to the mouth of the Lea (a few miles east of London), then up the Lea to its source near Leighton Buzzard, then straight north to Bedford, and then east along the Ouse to Watling Street near Fenny or Stony Stratford. After this point, the boundary is left unspecified, possibly because the kingdoms of Alfred and Guthrum no longer met here, though if Northamptonshire was part of Guthrum's kingdom, which seems likely, the boundary would need to extend a few miles along Watling Street. Thus, Northern Mercia, East Anglia, most of Essex, and Northumbria were ceded to the Danes and came to be known as Danelagh.

The three chief divisions of the Danelagh were (1) the kingdom of Northumbria, (2) the kingdom of East Anglia, (3) the district of the Five (Danish) Boroughs—lands grouped round Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Stamford and Lincoln, and forming a loose confederacy. Of the history of the two Danish kingdoms we know very little. Guthrum of East Anglia died in 890, and later we hear of a king Eric or Eohric who died in 902. Another Guthrum was ruling there in the days of Edward the Elder. The history of the Northumbrian kingdom is yet more obscure. After an interregnum consequent on the death of Healfdene the kingdom passed in 883 to one Guthred, son of Hardicanute, who ruled till 894, when his realm was taken over by King Alfred, though probably only under a very loose sovereignty. It may be noted here that Northumbria north of the Tyne, the old Bernicia, seems never to have passed under Danish authority and rule, but to have remained in independence until the general submission to Edward in 924.

The three main areas of the Danelagh were (1) the kingdom of Northumbria, (2) the kingdom of East Anglia, and (3) the region of the Five (Danish) Boroughs—lands surrounding Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Stamford, and Lincoln, forming a loose alliance. We know very little about the history of the two Danish kingdoms. Guthrum of East Anglia died in 890, and later we hear about a king named Eric or Eohric who died in 902. Another Guthrum was ruling there during the time of Edward the Elder. The history of the Northumbrian kingdom is even murkier. After a period without a ruler following Healfdene's death, the kingdom went to Guthred, son of Hardicanute, in 883, and he ruled until 894, when his territory was taken over by King Alfred, although likely only under very loose control. It's worth noting that Northumbria north of the Tyne, the old Bernicia, seems to have never been under Danish control but remained independent until the general submission to Edward in 924.

More is known of the history of the five boroughs. From 907 onwards Edward the Elder, working together with Æthelred of Mercia and his wife, worked for the recovery of the Danelagh. In that year Chester was fortified. In 911-912 an advance on Essex and Hertfordshire was begun. In 914 Buckingham was fortified and the Danes of Bedfordshire submitted. In 917 Derby was the first of the five boroughs to fall, followed by Leicester a few months later. In the same year after a keen struggle all the Danes belonging to the “borough” of Northampton, as far north as the Welland (i.e. the border of modern Northamptonshire), submitted to Edward and at the same time Colchester was fortified; a large portion of Essex submitted and the whole of the East Anglian Danes came in. Stamford was the next to yield, soon followed by Nottingham, and in 920 there was a general submission on the part of the Danes and the reconquest of the Danelagh was now complete.

More is known about the history of the five boroughs. From 907 onwards, Edward the Elder, along with Æthelred of Mercia and his wife, worked to recover the Danelagh. That year, Chester was fortified. Between 911 and 912, an advance into Essex and Hertfordshire began. In 914, Buckingham was fortified, and the Danes of Bedfordshire surrendered. In 917, Derby was the first of the five boroughs to fall, followed by Leicester a few months later. In the same year, after a fierce struggle, all the Danes from the “borough” of Northampton, as far north as the Welland (the border of modern Northamptonshire), surrendered to Edward, and at the same time, Colchester was fortified; a large portion of Essex capitulated, and all the East Anglian Danes came in. Stamford was the next to give up, soon followed by Nottingham, and in 920, there was a general surrender by the Danes, marking the complete reconquest of the Danelagh.

Though the independent occupation of the Danelagh by Viking invaders did not last for more than fifty years at the 804 outside, the Danes left lasting marks of their presence in these territories.

Though the Vikings didn't occupy the Danelagh for more than fifty years, they made a lasting impact on these lands. 804 outside.

The divisions of the land are foreign not native. The grouping of shires round a county town as distinct from the old national shires is probably of Scandinavian origin, and so certainly is the division of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire into “ridings.” In Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, part of Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutlandshire (of later formation) and Yorkshire we have the counties divided into “wapentakes” instead of “hundreds,” again a mark of Danish influence.

The divisions of the land are foreign, not native. The way shires are grouped around a county town, unlike the old national shires, probably comes from Scandinavian roots, and so does the division of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire into “ridings.” In Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, part of Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutlandshire (which was formed later), and Yorkshire, we see the counties divided into “wapentakes” instead of “hundreds,” which again shows Danish influence.

When we turn to the social divisions we find in Domesday and other documents classes of society in these districts bearing purely Norse names, dreng, karl, karlman, bonde, thrall, lysing, hold; in the system of taxation we have an assessment by carucates and not by hides and virgates, and the duodecimal rather than the decimal system of reckoning.

When we look at the social divisions found in Domesday and other documents, we see classes of society in these areas with purely Norse names: dreng, karl, karlman, bonde, thrall, lysing, hold. In the taxation system, we have an assessment based on carucates instead of hides and virgates, and we use the duodecimal system instead of the decimal one.

The highly developed Scandinavian legal system has also left abundant traces in this district. We may mention specially the institution of the “lawmen,” whom we find as a judicial body in several of the towns in or near the Danelagh. They are found at Cambridge, Stamford, Lincoln, York and Chester. There can be no doubt that these “lawmen,” who can be shown to form a close parallel to and indeed the ultimate source of our jury, were of Scandinavian origin. Many other legal terms can be definitely traced to Scandinavian sources, and they are first found in use in the district of the Danelagh.

The advanced Scandinavian legal system has also made a significant impact in this area. We can specifically point to the institution of “lawmen,” who served as a judicial body in several towns in or near the Danelagh. They are present in Cambridge, Stamford, Lincoln, York, and Chester. There is no doubt that these “lawmen,” who closely resemble and are ultimately the source of our jury system, originated from Scandinavia. Many other legal terms can definitely be traced back to Scandinavian roots, and they first appeared in the Danelagh region.

The whole of the place nomenclature of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Northern Northamptonshire is Scandinavian rather than native English, and in the remaining districts of the Danelagh a goodly proportion of Danish place-names may be found. Their influence is also evident in the dialects spoken in these districts to the present day. It is probable that until the end of the 10th century Scandinavian dialects were almost the sole language spoken in the district of the Danelagh, and when English triumphed, after an intermediate bilingual state, large numbers of words were adopted from the earlier Scandinavian speech.

The naming of places in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, and Northern Northamptonshire is mostly Scandinavian rather than native English, and in the other areas of the Danelagh, you can find a significant number of Danish place names. Their impact is still clear in the dialects spoken in these areas today. It’s likely that until the late 10th century, Scandinavian dialects were the primary language used in the Danelagh, and when English became dominant, following a period of bilingualism, many words were borrowed from the earlier Scandinavian language.

See The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, edited by Earle and Plummer (Oxford, 1892-1899); J. C. H. R. Steenstrup, Normannerne (4 vols., 1876-1882); and A. Bugge, Vikingerne (2 vols.).

See The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, edited by Earle and Plummer (Oxford, 1892-1899); J. C. H. R. Steenstrup, Normannerne (4 vols., 1876-1882); and A. Bugge, Vikingerne (2 vols.).

(A. Mw.)

DANGERFIELD, THOMAS (c. 1650-1685), English conspirator, was born about 1650 at Waltham, Essex, the son of a farmer. He began his career by robbing his father, and, after a rambling life, took to coining false money, for which offence and others he was many times imprisoned. False to everyone, he first tried to involve the duke of Monmouth and others by concocting information about a Presbyterian plot against the throne, and this having been proved a lie, he pretended to have discovered a Catholic plot against Charles II. This was known as the “Meal-tub Plot,” from the place where the incriminating documents were hidden at his suggestion, and found by the king’s officers by his information. Mrs Elizabeth Cellier,—in whose house the tub was,—almoner to the countess of Powis, who had befriended Dangerfield when he posed as a Catholic, was, with her patroness, actually tried for high treason and acquitted (1680). Dangerfield, when examined at the bar of the House of Commons, made other charges against prominent Papists, and attempted to defend his character by publishing, among other pamphlets, Dangerfield’s Narrative. This led to his trial for libel, and on the 29th of June 1685 he received sentence to stand in the pillory on two consecutive days, be whipped from Aldgate to Newgate, and two days later from Newgate to Tyburn. On his way back he was struck in the eye with a cane by a barrister, Robert Francis, and died shortly afterwards from the blow. The barrister was, tried and executed for the murder.

DANGERFIELD, THOMAS (c. 1650-1685), English conspirator, was born around 1650 in Waltham, Essex, to a farmer. He started his life of crime by stealing from his father and, after a chaotic lifestyle, began counterfeiting money, which led to multiple imprisonments. Dishonest to everyone, he initially tried to frame the duke of Monmouth and others by fabricating a story about a Presbyterian plot against the throne. When this was proven false, he claimed to have uncovered a Catholic conspiracy against Charles II. This became known as the "Meal-tub Plot," due to the location where the incriminating documents were hidden on his suggestion and subsequently discovered by the king’s officials based on his tip-off. Mrs. Elizabeth Cellier, who owned the house where the tub was located and served as the almoner to the Countess of Powis—who had helped Dangerfield when he pretended to be Catholic—was tried for high treason along with her patron but was acquitted in 1680. When Dangerfield appeared before the House of Commons, he made further accusations against prominent Catholics and tried to improve his reputation by publishing, among other pamphlets, Dangerfield’s Narrative. This led to his trial for libel, and on June 29, 1685, he was sentenced to stand in the pillory for two consecutive days, be whipped from Aldgate to Newgate, and then two days later from Newgate to Tyburn. On his way back, he was struck in the eye with a cane by a barrister named Robert Francis and died shortly after from the injury. The barrister was tried and executed for the murder.


DANIEL, the name given to the central figure1 of the biblical Book of Daniel (see below), which is now generally regarded as a production dating from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). There are no means of ascertaining anything definite concerning the origin of the hero Daniel. The account of him in Dan. i. has been generally misunderstood. According to i. 3, the Babylonian chief eunuch was commanded to bring “certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the nobles” to serve in the court. Many commentators have considered this to mean that some of the children were of the royal Judaean line of Jewish noble families, an interpretation which is not justified by the wording of the passage, which contains nothing to indicate that the author meant to convey the idea that Daniel was either royal or noble. Josephus,2 never doubting the historicity of Daniel, made the prophet a relative of Zedekiah and consequently of Jehoiakim, a conclusion which he apparently drew from the same passage, i. 3. Pseudo-Epiphanius,3 again, probably having the same source in mind, thought that Daniel was a Jewish noble. The true Epiphanius4 even gives the name of his father as Sabaan, and states that the prophet was born at Upper Beth-Horon, a village near Jerusalem. The after life and death of the seer are as obscure as his origin. The biblical account throws no light on the subject. According to the rabbis,5 Daniel went back to Jerusalem with the return of the captivity, and is supposed to have been one of the founders of the mythical Great Synagogue. Other traditions affirm that he died and was buried in Babylonia in the royal vault, while the Jewish traveller Benjamin of Tudela (12th cent. A.D.) was shown his tomb in Susa, which is also mentioned by the Arab, Abulfaragius (Bar-hebraeus). The author of Daniel did not pretend to give any sketch of the prophet’s career, but was content merely with making him the central figure, around which to group more or less disconnected narratives and accounts of visions. In view of these facts, and also of the generally inaccurate character of all the historical statements in the work, there is really no evidence to prove even the existence of the Daniel described in the book bearing his name.

DANIEL, is the name of the central figure of the biblical Book of Daniel (see below), which is now commonly believed to have been created during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). There's no way to determine anything specific about the origins of the hero Daniel. The account of him in Dan. i. has been largely misunderstood. According to i. 3, the Babylonian chief eunuch was instructed to bring “some of the children of Israel, and of the king’s descendants, and of the nobles” to serve in the court. Many commentators interpret this to mean that some of these children were from the royal line of Jewish noble families, but this interpretation isn't supported by the text, which doesn't suggest that the author intended to imply that Daniel was royal or noble. Josephus, 2 who never doubted Daniel's historicity, claimed that the prophet was a relative of Zedekiah and, therefore, of Jehoiakim, which he apparently inferred from the same passage, i. 3. Pseudo-Epiphanius, 3 likely referencing the same source, believed that Daniel was a Jewish noble. The true Epiphanius 4 even names his father as Sabaan and states that the prophet was born in Upper Beth-Horon, a village near Jerusalem. The details of the seer's later life and death are as unclear as his origins. The biblical account doesn’t provide any clarity. According to the rabbis, 5 Daniel returned to Jerusalem with those who came back from the captivity and is thought to have been one of the founders of the legendary Great Synagogue. Other traditions assert that he died and was buried in Babylonia in the royal tomb, while the Jewish traveler Benjamin of Tudela (12th cent. A.D.) claimed to have seen his tomb in Susa, which is also mentioned by the Arab historian Abulfaragius (Bar-hebraeus). The author of Daniel didn’t intend to provide an overview of the prophet's life, but simply made him the focal point around which to group various disconnected stories and visions. Given these facts, along with the generally unreliable nature of the historical claims in the work, there’s actually no evidence to support the existence of the Daniel described in the book that bears his name.

The question at once arises as to where the Maccabaean author of Daniel could have got the name and personality of his Daniel. It is not probable that he could have invented both name and character. There is an allusion in the prophet Ezekiel (xiv. 14, 20, xxviii. 3) to a Daniel whom he places as a great personality between Noah and Job. But this could not be our Daniel, whom Ezekiel, probably a man of ripe age at the time of the Babylonian deportation of the Jews, would hardly have mentioned in the same breath with two such characters, much less have put him between them, because, had the Daniel of the biblical book existed at this time, he would have been a mere boy, lacking any such distinction as to make him worthy of so high a mention. It is evident that Ezekiel considered his Daniel to be a celebrated ancient prophet, concerning whose date and origin, however, there is not a single trace to guide research. Hitzig’s6 conjecture that the Daniel of Ezekiel was Melchizedek is quite without foundation. The most that can be said in this connexion is that there may really have been a spiritual leader of the captive Jews who resided at Babylon and who was either named Daniel, perhaps after the unknown patriarch mentioned by Ezekiel, or to whom the same name had been given in the course of tradition by some historical confusion of persons. Following this hypothesis, it must be assumed that the fame of this Judaeo-Babylonian leader had been handed down through the unclear medium of oral tradition until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when some gifted Jewish author, feeling the need of producing a work which should console his people in their affliction under the persecutions of that monarch, seized upon the personality of the seer who lived during a time of persecution bearing many points of resemblance to that of Antiochus IV., and moulded some of the legends than extant about the life and activity of this misty prophet into such a form as should be best suited to a didactic purpose.7

The question immediately arises as to where the Maccabean author of Daniel could have gotten the name and character of his Daniel. It's unlikely that he invented both the name and the character. There’s a reference in the prophet Ezekiel (xiv. 14, 20, xxviii. 3) to a Daniel, whom he places as a significant figure between Noah and Job. However, this could not be our Daniel, as Ezekiel, likely an older man at the time of the Babylonian exile of the Jews, would hardly have mentioned him in the same context as such notable figures, much less placed him between them, since if the Daniel of the biblical book existed at that time, he would have been just a boy, lacking any significant distinction to warrant such a mention. It’s clear that Ezekiel viewed his Daniel as a well-known ancient prophet, but there’s no evidence to guide research on his date and origin. Hitzig’s6 suggestion that Ezekiel's Daniel was Melchizedek is completely unfounded. The most that can be said here is that there might have been a spiritual leader of the captive Jews living in Babylon, who was either named Daniel—perhaps after the unnamed patriarch mentioned by Ezekiel—or who was given the same name over time due to some historical mix-up. Following this theory, we must assume that the reputation of this Judaeo-Babylonian leader was passed down through the unclear means of oral tradition until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when a talented Jewish author, sensing the need to create a work to console his people during their suffering under that king's persecution, adopted the persona of the seer who lived during a time of persecution that bore many similarities to that of Antiochus IV., and reshaped some of the existing legends about the life and activities of this obscure prophet into a form suitable for didactic purposes.7

805

805

Daniel, Book of.—The Book of Daniel stands between Ezra and Esther in the third great division of the Hebrew Bible known as the Hagiographa, in which are classed all works which were not regarded as being part of the Law or the Prophets. The book presents the unusual peculiarity of being written in two languages, i.-ii. 4 and viii.-xii. being in Hebrew, while the text of ii. 4-vii. is the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic.8 The subject matter, however, falls naturally into two divisions which are not co-terminous with the linguistic sections; viz. i.-vi. and vii.-xii. The first of these sense-divisions deals only with narratives regarding the reign of Nebuchadrezzar and his supposed son Belshazzar, while the second section consists exclusively of apocalyptic prophecies. There can be no doubt that a definite plan was followed in the arrangement of the work. The author’s object was clearly to demonstrate to his readers the necessity of faith in Israel’s God, who shall not for ever allow his chosen ones to be ground under the heel of a ruthless heathen oppressor. To illustrate this, he makes use on the one hand (i.-vi.) of carefully chosen narratives, somewhat loosely connected it is true, but all treating substantially the same subject,—the physical triumph of God’s servant over his unbelieving enemies; and on the other hand (vii.-xii.), he introduces certain prophetic visions illustrative of God’s favour towards the same servant, Daniel. So carefully is this record of the visions arranged that the first two chapters of the second part of the book (vii.-viii.) were no doubt purposely made to appear in a symbolic form, in order that in the last two revelations (xi.-xii.), which were couched in such direct language as to be intelligible even to the modern student of history, the author might obtain the effect of a climax. The book is probably not therefore a number of parts of different origin thrown loosely together by a careless editor, who does not deserve the title of author.9 The more or less disconnected sections of the first part of the work were probably so arranged purposely, in order to facilitate its diffusion at a time when books were known to the people at large chiefly by being read aloud in public.

Book of Daniel.—The Book of Daniel is situated between Ezra and Esther in the third major section of the Hebrew Bible known as the Hagiographa, which includes all works that were not considered part of the Law or the Prophets. The book has the unique feature of being written in two languages: chapters i.-ii. 4 and viii.-xii. are in Hebrew, while chapters ii. 4-vii. are in the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic.8 The content, however, naturally divides into two sections that do not align with the language divisions; namely, i.-vi. and vii.-xii. The first section focuses solely on stories about the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and his supposed son Belshazzar, while the second section contains only apocalyptic prophecies. It is clear that there was an intentional plan behind the arrangement of the work. The author's goal was to demonstrate to readers the importance of faith in Israel’s God, who will not forever allow His chosen people to be oppressed by a harsh pagan ruler. To illustrate this, he utilizes selected narratives in the first part (i.-vi.), which, although somewhat loosely connected, all address the same theme—the physical victory of God’s servant over his non-believing foes. In the second part (vii.-xii.), he introduces prophetic visions that show God’s favor toward the same servant, Daniel. The structure of these visions is so meticulously arranged that the first two chapters of the second part (vii.-viii.) are clearly designed to appear symbolic, allowing the last two revelations (xi.-xii.) to be communicated in straightforward language that would be understandable even to today’s history students, creating a climax. Thus, the book is likely not simply a collection of disparate parts thrown together by a careless editor unworthy of the title of author.9 The seemingly disconnected sections in the first part were probably organized intentionally to make them easier to share at a time when books were mainly experienced through public readings.

Various attempts have been made to explain the sudden change from Hebrew to Aramaic in ii. 4. It was long thought, for example, that Aramaic was the vernacular of Babylonia and was consequently employed as the language of the parts relating to that country. But this was not the case, because the Babylonian language survived until a later date than that of the events portrayed in Daniel.10 Nor is it possible to follow the theory of Merx, that Aramaic, which was the popular tongue of the day when the Book of Daniel was written, was therefore used for the simpler narrative style, while the more learned Hebrew was made the idiom of the philosophical portions.11 The first chapter, which is just as much in the narrative style as are the following Aramaic sections, is in Hebrew, while the distinctly apocalyptic chapter vii. is in Aramaic. A third view, that the bilingual character of the work points to a time when both languages were used indifferently, is equally unsatisfactory,12 because it is highly questionable whether two idioms can ever be used quite indifferently. In fact, a hybrid work in two languages would be a literary monstrosity. In view of the apparent unity of the entire work, the only possible explanation seems to be that the book was written at first all in Hebrew, but for the convenience of the general reader whose vernacular was Aramaic, a translation, possibly from the same pen as the original, was made into Aramaic. It must be supposed then that, certain parts of the original Hebrew manuscript being lost, the missing places were supplied from the current Aramaic translation.13

Various attempts have been made to explain the sudden switch from Hebrew to Aramaic in ii. 4. It was long believed, for instance, that Aramaic was the everyday language of Babylonia and was therefore used for the sections related to that region. However, this is not accurate, as the Babylonian language lasted longer than the events depicted in Daniel. Nor can we accept Merx's theory that Aramaic, being the common language at the time the Book of Daniel was written, was used for the simpler narrative portions, while the more scholarly Hebrew was reserved for the philosophical parts. The first chapter, which has the same narrative style as the following Aramaic sections, is in Hebrew, while the distinctly apocalyptic chapter vii. is in Aramaic. Another perspective suggests that the bilingual nature of the work indicates a time when both languages were used interchangeably, but this too is unsatisfactory, as it's quite doubtful that two languages can be used completely interchangeably. In fact, a mixed work in two languages would be a literary oddity. Considering the apparent unity of the entire work, the most plausible explanation seems to be that the book was originally written entirely in Hebrew, but for the convenience of the general reader whose everyday language was Aramaic, a translation—possibly by the same author—was made into Aramaic. It must be assumed, then, that certain parts of the original Hebrew manuscript were lost, and the missing sections were filled in from the current Aramaic translation.

It cannot be denied in the light of modern historical research that if the Book of Daniel be regarded as pretending to full historical authority, the biblical record is open to all manner of attack. It is now the general opinion of most modern scholars who study the Old Testament from a critical point of view that this work cannot possibly have originated, according to the traditional theory, at any time during the Babylonian monarchy, when the events recorded are supposed to have taken place.

It’s undeniable, based on current historical research, that if the Book of Daniel is seen as claiming full historical authority, the biblical record is vulnerable to various criticisms. Most modern scholars who analyze the Old Testament critically now generally agree that this work could not have originated, as traditionally believed, during the Babylonian monarchy, when the events described are said to have occurred.

The chief reasons for such a conclusion are as follows.14

The main reasons for this conclusion are as follows.14

1. The position of the book among the Hagiographa, instead of among the Prophetical works, seems to show that it was introduced after the closing of the Prophetical Canon. Some commentators have believed that Daniel was not an actual prophet in the proper sense, but only a seer, or else that he had no official standing as a prophet and that therefore the book was not entitled to a place among official prophetical books. But if the work had really been in existence at the time of the completion of the second part of the canon, the collectors of the prophetical writings, who in their care did not neglect even the parable of Jonah, would hardly have ignored the record of so great a prophet as Daniel is represented to have been.

1. The placement of the book in the Hagiographa, rather than among the Prophetic works, suggests that it was added after the Prophetical Canon was finalized. Some commentators believe that Daniel wasn’t a true prophet in the traditional sense but just a seer, or that he didn’t have an official role as a prophet, which is why the book doesn’t belong among the official prophetic texts. However, if the work really existed when the second part of the canon was completed, the collectors of the prophetic writings—who were careful not to overlook even the parable of Jonah—would likely not have disregarded the account of a significant prophet like Daniel is said to be.

2. Jesus ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), who wrote about 200-180 B.C., in his otherwise complete list of Israel’s leading spirits (xlix.), makes no mention of Daniel. Hengstenberg’s plea that Ezra and Mordecai were also left unmentioned has little force, because Ezra appears in the book bearing his name as nothing more than a prominent priest and scholar, while Daniel is represented as a great prophet.

2. Jesus ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), who wrote around 200-180 B.C., in his otherwise comprehensive list of Israel’s key figures (xlix.), does not mention Daniel. Hengstenberg’s argument that Ezra and Mordecai are also omitted is weak, because Ezra is only presented in the book named after him as a notable priest and scholar, while Daniel is portrayed as a major prophet.

3. Had the Book of Daniel been extant and generally known after the time of Cyrus (537-529 B.C.), it would be natural to look for some traces of its power among the writings of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, whose works, however, show no evidence that either the name or the history of Daniel was known to these authors. Furthermore, the manner in which the prophets are looked back upon in ix. 6-10 cannot fail to suggest an extremely late origin for the book. Besides this, a careful study of ix. 2 seems to indicate that the Prophetical Canon was definitely completed at the time when the author of Daniel wrote. It is also highly probable that much of the material in the second part of the book was suggested by the works of the later prophets, especially by Ezekiel and Zechariah.

3. If the Book of Daniel had been available and widely known after the time of Cyrus (537-529 B.C.), it would make sense to find some influence in the writings of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. However, their works show no signs that either the name or the story of Daniel was familiar to these authors. Additionally, the way the prophets are referred to in ix. 6-10 strongly suggests that the book originates from a very late period. Moreover, a close examination of ix. 2 indicates that the Prophetical Canon was likely completed when the author of Daniel wrote. It's also quite possible that much of the content in the second part of the book was inspired by the writings of the later prophets, particularly Ezekiel and Zechariah.

4. Some of the beliefs set forth in the second part of the book also practically preclude the possibility of the author having lived at the courts of Nebuchadrezzar and his successors. Most noticeable among these doctrines is the complete system of angelology consistently followed out in the Book of Daniel, according to which the management of human affairs is entrusted to a regular hierarchy of commanding angels, two of whom, Gabriel and Michael, are even mentioned by name. Such an idea was distinctly foreign to the primitive Israelitish conception of the indivisibility of Yahweh’s power, and must consequently have been a borrowed one. It could certainly not have come from the Babylonians, however, whose system of attendant spirits was far from being so complete as that which is set forth in the Book of Daniel, but rather from Persian sources where a more complicated angelology had been developed. As many commentators have brought out, there can be little doubt that the doctrine of angels in Daniel is an indication of prolonged Persian influence. Furthermore, it is now very generally admitted that the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which is advanced for the first time in the Old Testament in Daniel, also originated among the Persians,15 and could only have been engrafted on the Jewish mind after a long period of intercourse with the Zoroastrian religion, which came into contact with the Jewish thinkers considerably after the time of Nebuchadrezzar.

4. Some of the beliefs presented in the second part of the book basically rule out the possibility that the author lived at the courts of Nebuchadrezzar and his successors. The most notable of these ideas is the complete system of angelology consistently laid out in the Book of Daniel, which states that human affairs are managed by a structured hierarchy of commanding angels, two of whom—Gabriel and Michael—are even named. This concept was clearly foreign to the early Israelite understanding of Yahweh’s indivisible power and must have been borrowed. It couldn't have originated from the Babylonians, whose array of attendant spirits was far less comprehensive than what is described in the Book of Daniel. Instead, it likely came from Persian sources, where a more complex angelology was developed. As many commentators have pointed out, there’s little doubt that the doctrine of angels in Daniel shows significant Persian influence. Moreover, it is now widely accepted that the concept of the resurrection of the dead, which first appears in the Old Testament in Daniel, also originated among the Persians and could only have been incorporated into Jewish thought after a lengthy period of interaction with Zoroastrianism, which engaged with Jewish thinkers well after the time of Nebuchadrezzar.

806

806

5. All the above evidences are merely internal, but we are now able to draw upon the Babylonian historical sources to prove that Daniel could not have originated at the time of Nebuchadrezzar. There can be no doubt that the author of Daniel thought that Belshazzar (q.v.), who has now been identified beyond all question with Bel-šar-uzur, the son of Nabonidus, the last Semitic king of Babylon, was the son of Nebuchadrezzar, and that Belshazzar attained the rank of king.16 This prince did not even come from the family of Nebuchadrezzar. Nabonidus, the father of Belshazzar, was the son of a nobleman Nabu-baladsu-iqbi, who was in all probability not related to any of the preceding kings of Babylon. Had Nabonidus been descended from Nebuchadrezzar he could hardly have failed in his records, which we possess, to have boasted of such a connexion with the greatest Babylonian monarch; yet in none of his inscriptions does he trace his descent beyond his father. Certain expositors have tried to obviate the difficulty, first by supposing that the expression “son of Nebuchadrezzar” in Daniel means “descendant” or “son,” a view which is rendered untenable by the facts just cited. This school has also endeavoured to prove that the author of Daniel did not mean to imply Belshazzar’s kingship of Babylon at all by his use of the word “king,” but they suggest that the writer of Daniel believed Belshazzar to have been co-regent. If Belshazzar had ever held such a position, which is extremely unlikely in the absence of any evidence from the cuneiform documents, he would hardly have been given the unqualified title “king of Babylon” as occurs in Daniel.17 For example, Cambyses, son of Cyrus, was undoubtedly co-regent and bore the title “king of Babylon” during his father’s lifetime, but, in a contract which dates from the first year of Cambyses, it is expressly stated that Cyrus was still “king of the lands.” This should be contrasted with Dan. viii. 1, where reference is made to the “third year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon” without any allusion to another over-ruler. Such attempts are at best subterfuges to support an impossible theory regarding the origin of the Book of Daniel, whose author clearly believed in the kingship of Belshazzar and in that prince’s descent from Nebuchadrezzar.

5. All the evidence mentioned above is purely internal, but we can now refer to Babylonian historical sources to show that Daniel could not have been written during the time of Nebuchadrezzar. It's clear that the author of Daniel believed Belshazzar (q.v.), who has now been definitively identified as Bel-šar-uzur, the son of Nabonidus, the last Semitic king of Babylon, was the son of Nebuchadrezzar and that Belshazzar held the title of king.16 However, this prince did not come from the family of Nebuchadrezzar. Nabonidus, Belshazzar's father, was the son of a nobleman named Nabu-baladsu-iqbi, who likely had no ties to the previous kings of Babylon. If Nabonidus had been a descendant of Nebuchadrezzar, he surely would have boasted about it in his records, which we still have, yet he doesn't trace his lineage beyond his father in any of his inscriptions. Some interpreters have tried to get around this problem by suggesting that when Daniel refers to “son of Nebuchadrezzar,” it means “descendant” or “son,” a point of view that is contradicted by the facts we've just discussed. This group has also attempted to argue that the author of Daniel did not mean to suggest Belshazzar’s kingship over Babylon at all by using the term “king,” but instead that the writer believed Belshazzar was a co-regent. If Belshazzar had ever held such a position, which is highly unlikely given the lack of evidence from cuneiform documents, he wouldn’t have been given the absolute title “king of Babylon” as it appears in Daniel.17 For instance, Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, was definitely a co-regent and held the title “king of Babylon” during his father’s reign. However, in a contract from Cambyses’ first year, it's clearly stated that Cyrus was still “king of the lands.” This is in contrast to Dan. viii. 1, where it mentions the “third year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon” with no reference to another ruler. These attempts are at best evasions to uphold an untenable theory about the origins of the Book of Daniel, whose author clearly believed in Belshazzar's kingship and that this prince had a lineage from Nebuchadrezzar.

Furthermore, the writer of Daniel asserts (v. 1) that a monarch “Darius the Mede” received the kingdom of Babylon after the fall of the native Babylonian house, although it is evident, from i. 21, x. 1, that the biblical author was perfectly aware of the existence of Cyrus.18 The fact that in no other scriptural passage is mention made of any Median ruler between the last Semitic king of Babylon and Cyrus, and the absolute silence of the authoritative ancient authors regarding such a king, make it apparent that the late author of Daniel is again in error in this particular. It is known that Cyrus became master of Media by conquering Astyages, and that the troops of the king of Persia capturing Babylon took Nabonidus prisoner with but little difficulty. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to identify this mythical Darius with the Cyaxares, son of Astyages, of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, and also with the Darius of Eusebius, who was in all probability Darius Hystaspis. There is not only no room in history for this Median king of the Book of Daniel, but it is also highly likely that the interpolation of “Darius the Mede” was caused by a confusion of history, due both to the destruction of the Assyrian capital Nineveh by the Medes, sixty-eight years before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, and also to the fame of the later king, Darius Hystaspis, a view which was advanced as early in the history of biblical criticism as the days of the Benedictine monk, Marianus Scotus. It is important to note in this connexion that Darius the Mede is represented as the son of Xerxes (Ahasuerus) and it is stated that he established 120 satrapies. Darius Hystaspis was the father of Xerxes, and according to Herodotus (iii. 89) established twenty satrapies. Darius the Mede entered into possession of Babylon after the death of Belshazzar; Darius Hystaspis conquered Babylon from the hands of certain rebels (Her. iii. 153-160). In fine, the interpolation of a Median Darius must be regarded as the most glaring historical inaccuracy of the author of Daniel. In fact, this error of the author alone is proof positive that he must have lived at a very late period, when the record of most of the earlier historical events had become hopelessly confused and perverted.

Furthermore, the writer of Daniel claims (v. 1) that a ruler named “Darius the Mede” took over the kingdom of Babylon after the fall of the native Babylonian dynasty, although it is clear, from i. 21 and x. 1, that the biblical author was fully aware of Cyrus’s existence. The fact that no other scripture mentions any Median ruler between the last Semitic king of Babylon and Cyrus, along with the complete silence of authoritative ancient writers about such a king, makes it clear that the later author of Daniel is mistaken regarding this point. It is known that Cyrus became the master of Media by defeating Astyages and that the Persian king’s forces captured Babylon and took Nabonidus prisoner with little trouble. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to link this mythical Darius with Cyaxares, the son of Astyages, from Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, and also with the Darius of Eusebius, who was probably Darius Hystaspis. Not only is there no historical basis for this Median king in the Book of Daniel, but it also seems likely that the mention of “Darius the Mede” arose from a historical mix-up, partly due to the Medes’ destruction of the Assyrian capital Nineveh sixty-eight years before Cyrus captured Babylon, and partly because of the fame of the later king, Darius Hystaspis, a view proposed as early as the days of the Benedictine monk, Marianus Scotus. It is essential to note that Darius the Mede is portrayed as the son of Xerxes (Ahasuerus) and is said to have established 120 satrapies. Darius Hystaspes was the father of Xerxes and according to Herodotus (iii. 89) created twenty satrapies. Darius the Mede took control of Babylon after Belshazzar’s death; Darius Hystaspis conquered Babylon from some rebels (Her. iii. 153-160). In summary, the introduction of a Median Darius should be seen as the most glaring historical error of the author of Daniel. In fact, this mistake alone proves that he must have lived in a very late period, when the records of many earlier historical events had become hopelessly confused and distorted.

With these chief reasons why the Book of Daniel cannot have originated in the Babylonian period, if the reader will turn more especially to the apocalyptic sections (vii.-xii.), it will be quite evident that the author is here giving a detailed account of historical events which may easily be recognized through the thin veil of prophetic mystery thrown lightly around them. It is indeed highly suggestive that just those occurrences which are the most remote from the assumed standpoint of the writer are the most correctly stated, while the nearer we approach the author’s supposed time, the more inaccurate does he become. It is quite apparent that the predictions in the Book of Daniel centre on the period of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.), when that Syrian prince was endeavouring to suppress the worship of Yahweh and substitute for it the Greek religion.19 There can be no doubt, for example, that in the “Little Horn” of vii. 8, viii. 9, and the “wicked prince” described in ix.-x., who is to work such evil among the saints, we have clearly one and the same person. It is now generally recognized that the king symbolized by the Little Horn, of whom it is said that he shall come of one of four kingdoms which shall be formed from the Greek empire after the death of its first king (Alexander), can be none other than Antiochus Epiphanes, and in like manner the references in ix. must allude to the same prince. It seems quite clear that xi. 21-45 refers to the evil deeds of Antiochus IV. and his attempts against the Jewish people and the worship of Yahweh. In xii. follows the promise of salvation from the same tyrant, and, strikingly enough, the predictions in this last section, x.-xii., relating to future events, become inaccurate as soon as the author finishes the section describing the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The general style of all these prophecies differs materially from that of all other prophetic writings in the Old Testament. Other prophets confine themselves to vague and general predictions, but the author of Daniel is strikingly particular as to detail in everything relating to the period in which he lived, i.e. the reign of Antiochus IV. Had the work been composed during the Babylonian era, it would be more natural to expect prophecies of the return of the exiled Jews to Palestine, as in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah, rather than the acclamation of an ideal Messianic kingdom such as is emphasized in the second part of Daniel.

With these main reasons why the Book of Daniel couldn’t have originated in the Babylonian period, if you look closely at the apocalyptic sections (chapters 7-12), it becomes clear that the author is providing a detailed account of historical events that can easily be identified behind the thin layer of prophetic mystery. It's quite telling that the events that are furthest from the author's presumed time are described most accurately, while things closer to that time become increasingly unclear. The predictions in the Book of Daniel clearly focus on the period of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.), when this Syrian ruler was trying to suppress the worship of Yahweh and replace it with the Greek religion. For instance, there’s no doubt that the “Little Horn” referenced in chapters 7:8, 8:9, and the “wicked prince” described in chapters 9-10, who is meant to cause trouble among the saints, are clearly the same figure. It’s now widely accepted that the king symbolized by the Little Horn, who is said to come from one of four kingdoms formed from the Greek empire after the death of its first king (Alexander), can only be Antiochus Epiphanes. Similarly, the references in chapter 9 must also refer to this same ruler. It seems obvious that chapters 11:21-45 refer to the evil deeds of Antiochus IV and his actions against the Jewish people and the worship of Yahweh. Chapter 12 follows this with the promise of salvation from the same tyrant, and interestingly, the predictions in this final section (chapters 10-12), which relate to future events, become inaccurate once the author finishes discussing the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The overall style of these prophecies is noticeably different from that of other prophetic writings in the Old Testament. Other prophets stick to vague and general predictions, but the author of Daniel is remarkably detailed about everything relating to the period he lived in, namely, the reign of Antiochus IV. If this work had been written during the Babylonian era, we would expect prophecies about the return of the exiled Jews to Palestine, similar to those in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, rather than a focus on the idea of an ideal Messianic kingdom as emphasized in the second part of Daniel.

As a specimen of the apocalyptic method followed in Daniel, the celebrated prophecy of the seventy weeks (ix. 24-27) may be cited, a full discussion of which will be found in Prince, Daniel 157-161. According to Jer. xxv. 11-12, the period of Israel’s probation and trial was to last seventy years. In the angelic explanation in Daniel of Jeremiah’s prophecy, these years were in reality year-weeks, which indicated a period of 490 years. This is the true apocalyptic system. The author takes a genuine prophecy, undoubtedly intended by Jeremiah to refer simply to the duration of the Babylonian captivity, and, by means of a purely arbitrary and mystical interpretation, makes it denote the entire period of Israel’s degradation down to his own time. This prophecy is really nothing more than an extension of the vision of the 2300 evening-mornings of viii. 14, and of the “time, times and a half a time” of vii. 25. The real problem is as to the beginning and end of this epoch, which is divided into three periods of uneven length; viz. one of seven weeks; one of sixty-two weeks; and the last of one week. It seems probable that the author of Daniel, like the Chronicler, began his period with the fall of Jerusalem in 586. His first seven weeks, therefore, ending with the rule of “Messiah the Prince,”20 probably Joshua ben Jozadak, the first high-priest after the exile (Ezra iii. 2), seem to coincide exactly with the duration of the Babylon exile, i.e. forty-nine years.

As an example of the apocalyptic style used in Daniel, the famous prophecy of the seventy weeks (ix. 24-27) can be referenced, with a thorough discussion available in Prince, Daniel 157-161. According to Jer. xxv. 11-12, the period of Israel’s testing and struggle was set to last seventy years. In the angelic explanation in Daniel regarding Jeremiah’s prophecy, these years were actually seen as week-years, indicating a span of 490 years. This represents the true apocalyptic framework. The author takes a real prophecy, certainly intended by Jeremiah to simply refer to the length of the Babylonian captivity, and through a completely arbitrary and mystical interpretation, expands it to represent the entire duration of Israel’s decline up to his own time. This prophecy is essentially just an extension of the vision of the 2300 evening-mornings of viii. 14 and the “time, times and half a time” of vii. 25. The main issue is determining the start and end of this period, which is divided into three segments of varying lengths: one of seven weeks; one of sixty-two weeks; and the final one of one week. It seems likely that the author of Daniel, similar to the Chronicler, began his timeline with the fall of Jerusalem in 586. His first seven weeks, therefore, which end with the rule of “Messiah the Prince,”20 probably Joshua ben Jozadak, the first high-priest after the exile (Ezra iii. 2), seem to align perfectly with the length of the Babylonian exile, which is forty-nine years.

807

807

The second period of the epoch, during which Jerusalem is to be peopled and built, and at the end of which the Messiah is to be cut off, is much more difficult to determine. The key to the problem lies undoubtedly in the last statement regarding the overthrow of the Messiah or Anointed One. Such a reference coming from a Maccabean author can only allude to the deposition by Antiochus IV. of the high-priest Onias III., which took place about 174 B.C., and the Syrian king’s subsequent murder of the same person not later than 171 (2 Macc. iv. 33-36). The difficulty now arises that between 537 and 171 there are only 366 years instead of the required number 434. It was evidently not the author’s intention to begin the second period of sixty weeks simultaneously with the first period, as some expositors have thought, because the whole passage shows conclusively that he meant seventy independent weeks. Besides, nothing is gained by such a device, which would bring the year of the end of the second period down to the meaningless date 152, too late to refer to Onias. Cornill therefore adopted the only tenable theory regarding the problem; viz. that the author of Daniel did not know the chronology between 537 and 312, the establishment of the Seleucid era, and consequently made the period too long. A parallel case is the much quoted example of Demetrius, who placed the fall of Samaria (722 B.C.) 573 years before the succession of Ptolemy IV. (222), thus making an error of seventy-three years. Josephus, who places the reign of Cyrus forty to fifty years too early, makes a similar error.

The second period of the time, during which Jerusalem will be populated and built, and at the end of which the Messiah will be cut off, is much harder to pinpoint. The key to understanding this lies in the last statement about the downfall of the Messiah or Anointed One. A reference like this from a Maccabean author can only refer to Antiochus IV's deposition of the high priest Onias III, which happened around 174 B.C., and the Syrian king's later murder of him no later than 171 (2 Macc. iv. 33-36). The issue now is that there are only 366 years between 537 and 171 instead of the required 434. It was clearly not the author's intention to start the second period of sixty weeks at the same time as the first period, as some commentators have suggested, because the whole passage clearly indicates that he meant seventy distinct weeks. Additionally, there is no benefit to such a strategy, which would bring the end of the second period to the insignificant date of 152, too late to refer to Onias. Therefore, Cornill adopted the only reasonable explanation for this issue; namely, that the author of Daniel did not know the timeline between 537 and 312, when the Seleucid era began, and therefore made the period too long. A similar case is the often-cited example of Demetrius, who placed the fall of Samaria (722 B.C.) 573 years before the rise of Ptolemy IV (222), leading to a mistake of seventy-three years. Josephus, who places Cyrus's reign forty to fifty years too early, makes a similar error.

The last week is divided into two sections (26-27), in the first of which the city and sanctuary shall be destroyed and in the second the daily offering is to be suspended. All critical scholars recognize the identity of this second half-week with the “time, times and a half a time” of vii. 25. This last week must, therefore, end with the restoration of the temple worship in 164 B.C.

The last week is split into two parts (26-27). In the first part, the city and sanctuary will be destroyed, and in the second part, the daily offering will be paused. All critical scholars agree that this second half-week corresponds to the “time, times, and half a time” mentioned in vii. 25. Thus, this last week must conclude with the restoration of temple worship in 164 B.C.

This whole prophecy, which is perhaps the most interesting in the Book of Daniel, presents problems which can never be thoroughly understood, first because the author must have been ignorant of both history and chronology, and secondly, because, in his effort to be as mystical as possible, he purposely made use of indefinite and vague expressions which render the criticism of the passage a most unsatisfactory task.

This entire prophecy, which is probably the most fascinating in the Book of Daniel, raises issues that can never be fully understood. First, because the author likely lacked knowledge of both history and chronology, and second, because in his attempt to be as mystical as possible, he intentionally used ambiguous and vague language, making the analysis of this passage quite an unsatisfying endeavor.

The Book of Daniel loses none of its beauty and force because we are bound, in the light of modern criticism, to consider it as a production of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, nor should conservative Bible-readers lament because the historical accuracy of the work is thus destroyed. The influence of the work was very great on the subsequent development of Christianity, but it was not the influence of the history contained in it which made itself felt, but rather of that sublime hope for a future deliverance of which the author of Daniel never lost sight. The allusion to the book by Jesus (Matt. xxiv. 15) shows merely that our Lord was referring to the work by its commonly accepted title, and implies no authoritative utterance with regard to its date or authorship. Our Lord simply made use of an apt quotation from a well-known work in order to illustrate and give additional force to his own prediction. If the book be properly understood, it must not only be admitted that the author made no pretence at accuracy of detail, but also that his prophecies were clearly intended to be merely an historical résumé, clothed for the sake of greater literary vividness in a prophetic garb. The work, which is certainly not a forgery, but only a consolatory political pamphlet, is just as powerful, viewed according to the author’s evident intention, as a consolation to God’s people in their dire distress at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, as if it were, what an ancient but mistaken tradition had made it, really an accurate account of events which took place at the close of the Babylonian period.21

The Book of Daniel retains its beauty and impact even when we recognize, based on modern analysis, that it was created during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Conservative Bible readers shouldn't mourn the loss of historical accuracy in the work. Its influence on the later development of Christianity was significant, but it wasn’t the historical details that made an impact; it was the profound hope for future deliverance that the author of Daniel never lost sight of. When Jesus mentions the book (Matt. xxiv. 15), he is simply referring to it by its commonly known title, and this does not imply any authoritative statement on when it was written or who wrote it. Our Lord used a fitting quote from an established work to enhance his own predictions. Understanding the book correctly requires us to acknowledge that the author didn’t aim for accuracy in details; rather, his prophecies seem to be a historical summary dressed in prophetic language for literary effect. The work is definitely not a forgery, but rather a comforting political pamphlet that serves as powerful consolation to God’s people in their suffering during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, just as if it were, as an old but incorrect tradition suggested, an actual account of events at the end of the Babylonian period.21

Literature.—See bibliography in Bevan, Daniel 9, and add Kamphausen, Dan., in Haupt’s Sacred Books of the Old Testament; Behrmann, Dan. (1894); J. D. Prince, Dan. (1899); G. A. Barton, “The Compilation of the Book of Daniel,” in Journ. Bibl. Lit. (1898), 62-86, against the unity of the book, &c., &c.; J. D. Davis, “Persian Words and the Date of O.T. Documents,” in Old Testament and Semitic Studies: in Memory of W. R. Harper (Chicago, 1908).

Literature.—See bibliography in Bevan, Daniel 9, and add Kamphausen, Dan., in Haupt’s Sacred Books of the Old Testament; Behrmann, Dan. (1894); J. D. Prince, Dan. (1899); G. A. Barton, “Compilation of the Book of Daniel,” in Journ. Bibl. Lit. (1898), 62-86, discussing the unity of the book, etc.; J. D. Davis, “Persian Words and the Date of O.T. Documents,” in Old Testament and Semitic Studies: in Memory of W. R. Harper (Chicago, 1908).

(J. D. Pr.)

Additions to Daniel.—The “additions to Daniel” are three in number: Susannah and the Elders, Bel and the Dragon, and The Song of the Three Children. Of these the two former have no organic connexion with the text. The case is otherwise with regard to the last. In some respects it helps to fill up a gap in the canonical text between verses 23 and 24 of chapter iii. And yet we find Polychronius, early in the 5th century, stating that this song was not found in the Syriac version.

Additions to Daniel.—The “additions to Daniel” include three parts: Susannah and the Elders, Bel and the Dragon, and The Song of the Three Children. The first two are not connected to the main text. However, the last one does play a role in bridging a gap in the canonical text between verses 23 and 24 of chapter three. Still, we see Polychronius, early in the 5th century, noting that this song wasn't included in the Syriac version.

Susannah.—This addition was placed by Theodotion before chap. i., and Bel and the Dragon at its close, whereas by the Septuagint and the Vulgate it was reckoned as chap. xiii. after the twelve canonical chapters, Bel and the Dragon as xiv. Theodotion’s version is the source of the Peshitto and the Vulgate, for all three additions, and the Septuagint is the source of the Syro-Hexaplaric which has been published by Ceriani (Mon. Sacr. vii.). The legend recounts how that in the early days of the Captivity Susannah, the beautiful and pious wife of the rich Joakim, was walking in her garden and was there seen by two elders who were also judges. Inflamed with lust, they made infamous proposals to her, and when repulsed they brought against her a false charge of adultery. When brought before the tribunal she was condemned to death and was on the way to execution, when Daniel interposed and, by cross-questioning the accusers apart, convinced the people of the falsity of the charge.

Susannah.—This addition was placed by Theodotion before chap. i., and Bel and the Dragon at its end, while the Septuagint and the Vulgate considered it as chap. xiii. after the twelve canonical chapters, with Bel and the Dragon as xiv. Theodotion’s version is the source for the Peshitto and the Vulgate regarding all three additions, and the Septuagint is the source of the Syro-Hexaplaric which was published by Ceriani (Mon. Sacr. vii.). The legend tells how, in the early days of the Captivity, Susannah, the beautiful and devout wife of the wealthy Joakim, was walking in her garden and was seen by two elders who were also judges. Consumed by desire, they made disgraceful proposals to her, and when she rejected them, they brought a false accusation of adultery against her. When she was brought before the court, she was sentenced to death and was on her way to execution when Daniel intervened and, by questioning the accusers separately, convinced the people of the falsehood of the accusation.

The source of the story may, according to Ewald (Gesch.³ iv. 636), have been suggested by the Babylonian legend of the seduction of two old men by the goddess of love (see also Koran, Sur. ii. 96). Another and much more probable origin of the work is that given by Brüll (Das apocr. Susanna-Buch, 1877) and Ball (Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 323-331). The first half of the story is based on a tradition—originating possibly in Jer. xxix. 21-32 and found in the Talmud and Midrash—of two elders Ahab and Zedekiah, who in the Captivity led certain women astray under the delusion that they should thereby become the mother of the Messiah. But the most interesting part of the investigation is concerned with the latter half of the story, which deals with the trial. The characteristics of this section point to its composition about 100-90 B.C., when Simon ben Shetaḥ was president of the Sanhedrin. Its object was to support the attempts of the Pharisees to bring about a reform in the administration of the law courts. According to Sadducean principles the man who was convicted of falsely accusing another of a capital offence was not put to death unless his victim was already executed. The Pharisees held that the intention of the accusers was equivalent to murder. Our apocryph upholds the Pharisaic contention. As Simon ben Shetaḥ insisted on a rigorous examination of the witnesses, so does our writer: as he and his party required that the perjurer should suffer the same penalty he sought to inflict on another, so our writer represents the death penalty as inflicted on the perjured elders.

The source of the story may, according to Ewald (Gesch.³ iv. 636), have been inspired by the Babylonian legend of the goddess of love seducing two old men (see also Koran, Sur. ii. 96). A more likely origin of the work is suggested by Brüll (Das apocr. Susanna-Buch, 1877) and Ball (Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 323-331). The first half of the story is based on a tradition—possibly originating from Jer. xxix. 21-32 and found in the Talmud and Midrash—about two elders, Ahab and Zedekiah, who led certain women astray during the Captivity, believing that they would become the mother of the Messiah. The most intriguing part of the investigation focuses on the latter half of the story, which involves the trial. The features of this section suggest it was written around 100-90 B.C., when Simon ben Shetaḥ was the president of the Sanhedrin. Its purpose was to support the Pharisees' efforts to reform the administration of the law courts. According to Sadducean principles, a man convicted of falsely accusing someone of a capital crime would not be executed unless his victim had already been killed. The Pharisees believed that the intentions of the accusers were equivalent to murder. Our apocrypha supports the Pharisaic viewpoint. Just as Simon ben Shetaḥ insisted on thorough examination of the witnesses, so does our writer: he portrays the perjurer receiving the same penalty they sought to impose on another, representing the death penalty inflicted on the false elders.

The language was in all probability Semitic-Hebrew or Aramaic. The paronomasiae in the Greek in verses 54-55 (ὑπὸ σχῖνον ... σχίσει) and 58-59 (ὑπὸ πρῖνον ... πρίσει) present no cogent difficulty against this view; for they may be accidental and have arisen for the first time in the translation. But as Brüll and Ball have shown (see Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 324), the same paronomasiae are possible either in Hebrew or Aramaic.

The language was likely Semitic-Hebrew or Aramaic. The wordplays in the Greek in verses 54-55 (ὑπὸ σχῖνον ... σχίσει) and 58-59 (Under brush ... will brush) don't provide any strong evidence against this view; they might be accidental and could have appeared for the first time in the translation. However, as Brüll and Ball have demonstrated (see Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 324), the same wordplays are possible in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

Literature.—Ball in the Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 233 sqq.; Schürer, Gesch.³ iii. 333; Rothstein in Kautzsch’s Apocr. u. Pseud. i. 176 sqq.; Kamphausen in Ency. Bib.; Marshall in Hastings’ Bible Dict.; Toy in the Jewish Encyc.

Literature.—Ball in the Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 233 sqq.; Schürer, Gesch.³ iii. 333; Rothstein in Kautzsch’s Apocr. u. Pseud. i. 176 sqq.; Kamphausen in Ency. Bib.; Marshall in Hastings’ Bible Dict.; Toy in the Jewish Encyc.

Bel and the Dragon.—We have here two independent narratives, in both of which Daniel appears as the destroyer of heathenism. The latter had a much wider circulation than the former, and is most probably a Judaized form of the old Semitic myth of the destruction of the old dragon, which represents primeval chaos (see Ball, Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 346-348; Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, 320-323). Marduk destroys Tiamat in a similar manner to that in which Daniel destroys the dragon (Delitzsch, Das babylonische Weltschöpfung Epos), by driving a storm-wind into the dragon which rends it asunder. Marshall (Hastings’ Bib. Dict. i. 267) suggests that the “pitch” of the Greek (Aramaic זיפא) arose from the original term for storm-wind (זעפא).

Bel and the Dragon.—We have two separate stories here, where Daniel shows up as the opponent of paganism. The second story was much more widely known than the first and is likely a Judaized version of the ancient Semitic myth about the defeat of the old dragon, which symbolizes primordial chaos (see Ball, Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 346-348; Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, 320-323). Marduk defeats Tiamat in a way similar to how Daniel defeats the dragon (Delitzsch, Das babylonische Weltschöpfung Epos), by sending a storm-wind into the dragon, tearing it apart. Marshall (Hastings’ Bib. Dict. i. 267) suggests that the “pitch” of the Greek (Aramaic זיפא) comes from the original word for storm-wind (זעפא).

808

808

The Greek exists in two recensions, those of the Septuagint and Theodotion. Most scholars maintain a Greek original, but this is by no means certain. Marshall (Hastings’ Bib Dict. i. 268) argues for an Aramaic, and regards Gasters’s Aramaic text [Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (1894), pp. 280-290, 312-317; (1895) 75-94] as of primary value in this respect, but this is doubtful.

The Greek exists in two versions, those of the Septuagint and Theodotion. Most scholars believe there is a Greek original, but this is not certain. Marshall (Hastings' Bib Dict. i. 268) argues for an Aramaic original and considers Gaster’s Aramaic text [Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (1894), pp. 280-290, 312-317; (1895) 75-94] to be of primary importance in this regard, but this is questionable.

Literature.—Fritzsche’s Handbuch zu den Apoc.; Ball in the Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 344 sqq.; Schürer,³ Gesch. iii. 332 sqq.; and the articles in the Ency. Bibl., Bible Dict., and Jewish Encyc.

Literature.—Fritzsche’s Handbook on the Apocrypha; Ball in the Speaker’s Apocrypha ii. 344 sqq.; Schürer,³ History iii. 332 sqq.; and the articles in the Encyclopedia Biblical, Bible Dictionary, and Jewish Encyclopedia

The Greek text is best given in Swete iii., and the Syriac will be found in Walton’s Polyglot, Lagarde and Neubauer’s Tobit.

The Greek text is best provided in Swete iii., and the Syriac can be found in Walton’s Polyglot, Lagarde and Neubauer’s Tobit.

Song of the Three Children.—This section is composed of the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of Azariah, Ananias and Misael, and was inserted after iii. 23 of the canonical text of Daniel. According to Fritzsche, König, Schürer, &c., it was composed in Greek and added to the Greek translation. On the other hand, Delitzsch, Bissell, Ball, &c., maintain a Hebrew original. The latter view has been recently supported by Rothstein, Apocr. und Pseud. i. 173-176, who holds that these additions were made to the text before its translation into Greek. These additions still preserve, according to Rothstein, a fragment of the original text, i.e. verses 23-28, which came between verses 23 and 24 of chapter iii. of the canonical text. They certainly fill up excellently a manifest gap in this text. “The Song of the Three Children” was first added after the verses just referred to, and subsequently the Prayer of Azariah was inserted before these verses.

Song of the Three Children.—This section includes the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of Azariah, Ananias, and Misael, and was added after iii. 23 of the accepted text of Daniel. According to Fritzsche, König, Schürer, and others, it was originally written in Greek and included in the Greek translation. In contrast, Delitzsch, Bissell, Ball, and others argue for a Hebrew original. This viewpoint has recently been supported by Rothstein, Apocr. und Pseud. i. 173-176, who claims that these additions were made to the text before it was translated into Greek. Rothstein asserts that these additions still retain a fragment of the original text, namely verses 23-28, which were positioned between verses 23 and 24 of chapter iii. of the canonical text. They effectively fill a noticeable gap in this text. “The Song of the Three Children” was first added after the aforementioned verses, and later the Prayer of Azariah was placed before these verses.

Literature.—Ball in the Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 305 sqq.; Rothstein in Kautzsch’s Apocr. und Pseud. i. 173 sqq.; Schürer,³ Gesch. iii. 332 sqq.

Literature.—Ball in the Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 305 sqq.; Rothstein in Kautzsch’s Apocr. und Pseud. i. 173 sqq.; Schürer,³ Gesch. iii. 332 sqq.

(R. H. C.)

1 Four personages of the name of Daniel appear in the Old Testament: (1) the patriarch of Ezekiel (see above); (2) a son of David (1 Chron. iii. 1); (3) a Levite contemporary with Ezra (Ezra viii. 2; Neh. x. 6); (4) our Daniel.

1 Four characters named Daniel show up in the Old Testament: (1) the patriarch mentioned in Ezekiel (see above); (2) a son of David (1 Chron. iii. 1); (3) a Levite who lived at the same time as Ezra (Ezra viii. 2; Neh. x. 6); (4) our Daniel.

2 Ant. x. 10, 1.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ant. x. 10, 1.

3 Chap, x., on the Prophets.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Chapter x, on the Prophets.

4 Panarion, adv. Haeres. 55, 3.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Panarion, adv. Haeres. 55, 3.

5 Prince, Dan. p. 26, n. 6.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Prince, Dan. p. 26, n. 6.

6 Dan. p. viii.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Dan. p. viii.

7 The account in chap. ii. of the promotion of Daniel to be governor of Babylon, as a reward for his correct interpretation of Nebuchadrezzar’s dream, is very probably an imitation of the story of Joseph in Gen. xl-xli. The points of resemblance are very striking. In both accounts, we have a young Hebrew raised by the favour of a heathen king to great political prominence, owing to his extraordinary God-given ability to interpret dreams. In both versions, the heathen astrologers make the first attempt to solve the difficulty, which results in failure, whereupon the pious Israelite, being summoned to the royal presence, in both cases through the friendly intervention of a court official, triumphantly explains the mystery to the king’s satisfaction (cf. Prince, Dan. p. 29).

7 The story in chap. ii. about Daniel being promoted to governor of Babylon as a reward for correctly interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream likely mirrors the tale of Joseph in Gen. xl-xli. The similarities are quite remarkable. In both stories, a young Hebrew is elevated to a high political position by the favor of a pagan king, thanks to his extraordinary God-given talent for interpreting dreams. In each account, the pagan astrologers first attempt to solve the problem, but they fail. Then, the devout Israelite is called to the king, both times with the help of a court official, and successfully explains the mystery to the king's satisfaction (cf. Prince, Dan. p. 29).

8 See Bevan, Dan. 28-40, on the Hebrew and Aramaic of Daniel.

8 See Bevan, Dan. 28-40, on the Hebrew and Aramaic of Daniel.

9 According to Lagarde, Mitteilungen, iv. 351 (1891); also Gött, Gelehrte Anzeigen (1891), 497-520.

9 According to Lagarde, Mitteilungen, iv. 351 (1891); also Gött, Gelehrte Anzeigen (1891), 497-520.

10 The latest connected Babylonian inscription is that of Antiochus Soter (280-260 B.C.), but the language was probably spoken until Hellenic times; cf. Gutbrod, Zeitschr. für Assyriol. vi. 27.

10 The most recent connected Babylonian inscription is from Antiochus Soter (280-260 B.C.), but the language was likely spoken until Hellenic times; see Gutbrod, Zeitschr. für Assyriol. vi. 27.

11 Prince, Dan. 12.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Prince, Dan. 12.

12 Bertholdt, Dan. 15; Franz Delitzsch, in Herzog, Realencyklopädie, 2nd ed., iii. 470.

12 Bertholdt, Dan. 15; Franz Delitzsch, in Herzog, Realencyklopädie, 2nd ed., iii. 470.

13 Bevan, Dan. 27 ff.; Prince, Dan. 13.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Bevan, Dan. 27 ff.; Prince, Dan. 13.

14 For this whole discussion, see Prince, Dan. 15 ff.

14 For this entire discussion, see Prince, Dan. 15 ff.

15 The investigations of Haug, Spiegel and Windischmann show that this was a real Zoroastrian doctrine.

15 The research by Haug, Spiegel, and Windischmann reveals that this was an authentic Zoroastrian belief.

16 Prince, Dan. 35-42.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Prince, Dan. 35-42.

17 Certain tablets published by Strassmaier, bearing date continuously from Nabonidus to Cyrus, show that neither Belshazzar nor “Darius the Mede” could have had the title “king of Babylon.” See Driver, Introduction,³ xxii.

17 Certain tablets published by Strassmaier, dated from Nabonidus to Cyrus, indicate that neither Belshazzar nor “Darius the Mede” could have held the title “king of Babylon.” See Driver, Introduction,³ xxii.

18 Prince, Dan. 44-56.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Prince, Dan. 44-56.

19 Prince, Dan. 19-20, 140, 155, 179 ff.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Prince, Dan. 19-20, 140, 155, 179 and following.

20 That “Messiah” or “Anointed One” was used of the High-Priest is seen from Lev. x, 3, v. 16.

20 The term “Messiah” or “Anointed One” referred to the High Priest, as shown in Lev. x, 3, v. 16.

21 Prince, Dan. 22-24.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Prince, Dan. 22-24.


DANIEL (Danil), of Kiev, the earliest Russian travel-writer, and one of the leading Russian travellers in the middle ages. He journeyed to Syria and other parts of the Levant about 1106-1107. He was the igumen, or abbot, of a monastery probably near Chernigov in Little Russia: some identify him with one Daniel, bishop of Suriev (fl. 1115-1122). He visited Palestine in the reign of Baldwin I., Latin king of Jerusalem (1100-1118), and apparently soon after the crusading capture of Acre (1104); he claims to have accompanied Baldwin, who treated him with marked friendliness, on an expedition against Damascus (c. 1107). Though Daniel’s narrative, beginning (as it practically ends) at Constantinople, omits some of the most interesting sections of his journey, his work has considerable value. His picture of the Holy Land preserves a record of conditions (such as the Saracen raiding almost up to the walls of Christian Jerusalem, and the friendly relations subsisting between Roman and Eastern churches in Syria) peculiarly characteristic of the time; his account of Jerusalem itself is remarkably clear, minute and accurate; his three excursions—to the Dead Sea and Lower Jordan (which last he compares to a river of Little Russia, the Snov), to Bethlehem and Hebron, and towards Damascus—gave him an exceptional knowledge of certain regions. In spite of some extraordinary blunders in topography and history, his observant and detailed record, marked by evident good faith, is among the most valuable of medieval documents relating to Palestine: it is also important in the history of the Russian language, and in the study of ritual and liturgy (from its description of the Easter services in Jerusalem, the Descent of the Holy Fire, &c.). Several Russian friends and companions, from Kiev and Old Novgorod, are recorded by Daniel as present with him at the Easter Eve “miracle,” in the church of the Holy Sepulchre.

DANIEL (Danil), from Kiev, is the earliest Russian travel writer and one of the most notable Russian travelers of the Middle Ages. He traveled to Syria and other areas of the Levant around 1106-1107. He was the igumen, or abbot, of a monastery likely near Chernigov in Little Russia; some identify him as Daniel, the bishop of Suriev (fl. 1115-1122). He visited Palestine during the reign of Baldwin I, the Latin king of Jerusalem (1100-1118), probably shortly after the crusading capture of Acre (1104); he claims to have accompanied Baldwin, who treated him very kindly, on a mission against Damascus (c. 1107). Although Daniel’s narrative, which starts (and effectively ends) in Constantinople, leaves out some of the most interesting parts of his journey, his work is still quite valuable. His description of the Holy Land documents conditions typical of the time, such as the Saracen raids nearly reaching the walls of Christian Jerusalem and the friendly relations between Roman and Eastern churches in Syria; his account of Jerusalem itself is remarkably clear, detailed, and accurate. His three trips—to the Dead Sea and Lower Jordan (which he compares to a river in Little Russia, the Snov), to Bethlehem and Hebron, and towards Damascus—gave him exceptional knowledge of certain areas. Despite some significant errors in geography and history, his observant and detailed account, showing evident sincerity, ranks among the most valuable medieval documents concerning Palestine. It is also important for the history of the Russian language and the study of rituals and liturgy (especially his description of the Easter services in Jerusalem, the Descent of the Holy Fire, etc.). Daniel notes several Russian friends and companions from Kiev and Old Novgorod who were with him at the Easter Eve “miracle” in the church of the Holy Sepulchre.

There are seventy-six MSS. of Daniel’s Narrative, of which only five are anterior to A.D. 1500; the oldest is of 1475 (St Petersburg, Library of Ecclesiastical History 9/1086). Three editions exist, of which I. P. Sakharov’s (St Petersburg, 1849) is perhaps the best known (in Narratives of the Russian People, vol. ii. bk. viii. pp. 1-45). See also the French version in Itinéraires russes en orient, ed Me B. de Khitrovo (Geneva, 1889) (Société de l’orient latin); and the account of Daniel in C. R. Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, ii. 155-174.

There are seventy-six manuscripts of Daniel’s Narrative, of which only five date before A.D. 1500; the oldest is from 1475 (St Petersburg, Library of Ecclesiastical History 9/1086). Three editions exist, and I. P. Sakharov’s (St Petersburg, 1849) is perhaps the most well-known (in Narratives of the Russian People, vol. ii. bk. viii. pp. 1-45). See also the French version in Itinéraires russes en orient, edited by Me B. de Khitrovo (Geneva, 1889) (Société de l’orient latin); and the account of Daniel in C. R. Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, ii. 155-174.

(C. R. B.)

DANIEL, GABRIEL (1649-1728), French Jesuit historian, was born at Rouen on the 8th of February 1649. He was educated by the Jesuits, entered the order at the age of eighteen, and became superior at Paris. He is best known by his Histoire de France depuis l’établissement de la monarchie française (first complete edition, 1713), which was republished in 1720, 1721, 1725, 1742, and (the last edition, with notes by Father Griffet) 1755-1760. Daniel published an abridgment in 1724 (English trans., 1726), and another abridgment was published by Dorival in 1751. Though full of prejudices which affect his accuracy, Daniel had the advantage of consulting valuable original sources. His Histoire de la milice française, &c. (1721) is superior to his Histoire de France, and may still be consulted with advantage. Daniel also wrote a by no means successful reply to Pascal’s Provincial Letters, entitled Entretiens de Cléanthe et d’Eudoxe sur les lettres provinciales (1694); two treatises on the Cartesian theory as to the intelligence of the lower animals, and other works.

DANIEL, GABRIEL (1649-1728), a French Jesuit historian, was born in Rouen on February 8, 1649. He was educated by the Jesuits, joined the order at eighteen, and later became the head in Paris. He is best known for his Histoire de France depuis l’établissement de la monarchie française (first complete edition, 1713), which was reissued in 1720, 1721, 1725, 1742, and the final edition, with notes by Father Griffet, in 1755-1760. Daniel published a shorter version in 1724 (English trans., 1726), and another condensed version was published by Dorival in 1751. Although he had biases that impact his accuracy, Daniel benefited from accessing valuable original sources. His Histoire de la milice française, etc. (1721) is regarded as better than his Histoire de France and can still be consulted usefully. Daniel also wrote an unsuccessful response to Pascal’s Provincial Letters, called Entretiens de Cléanthe et d’Eudoxe sur les lettres provinciales (1694); two treatises on the Cartesian theory about the intelligence of lower animals, and other works.

See Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, t. ii.

See Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, t. ii.


DANIEL, SAMUEL (1562-1619), English poet and historian, was the son of a music-master, and was born near Taunton, in Somersetshire, in 1562. Another son, John Daniel, was a musician, who held some offices at court, and was the author of Songs for the Lute, Viol and Voice (1606). In 1579 Samuel was admitted a commoner of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, where he remained for about three years, and then gave himself up to the unrestrained study of poetry and philosophy. The name of Samuel Daniel is given as the servant of Lord Stafford, ambassador in France, in 1586, and probably refers to the poet. He was first encouraged and, if we may believe him, taught in verse, by the famous countess of Pembroke, whose honour he was never weary of proclaiming. He had entered her household as tutor to her son, William Herbert. His first known work, a translation of Paulus Jovius, to which some original matter is appended, was printed in 1585. His first known volume of verse is dated 1592; it contains the cycle of sonnets to Delia and the romance called The Complaint of Rosamond. Twenty-seven of the sonnets had already been printed at the end of Sir Philip Sidney’s Astrophel and Stella without the author’s consent. Several editions of Delia appeared in 1592, and they were very frequently reprinted during Daniel’s lifetime. We learn by internal evidence that Delia lived on the banks of Shakespeare’s river, the Avon, and that the sonnets to her were inspired by her memory when the poet was in Italy. To an edition of Delia and Rosamond, in 1594, was added the tragedy of Cleopatra, a severe study in the manner of the ancients, in alternately rhyming heroic verse, diversified by stiff choral interludes. The First Four Books of the Civil Wars, an historical poem in ottava rima, appeared in 1595. The bibliography of Daniel’s works is attended with great difficulty, but as far as is known it was not until 1599 that there was published a volume entitled Poetical Essays, which contained, besides the “Civil Wars,” “Musophilus,” and “A letter from Octavia to Marcus Antonius,” poems in Daniel’s finest and most mature manner. About this time he became tutor to Anne Clifford, daughter of the countess of Cumberland. On the death of Spenser, in the same year, Daniel received the somewhat vague office of poet-laureate, which he seems, however, to have shortly resigned in favour of Ben Jonson. Whether it was on this occasion is not known, but about this time, and at the recommendation of his brother-in-law, Giovanni Florio, he was taken into favour at court, and wrote a Panegyric Congratulatorie offered to the King at Burleigh Harrington in Rutlandshire, in ottava rima. In 1603 this poem was published, and in many cases copies contained in addition his Poetical Epistles to his patrons and an elegant prose essay called A Defence of Rime (originally printed in 1602) in answer to Thomas Campion’s Observations on the Art of English Poesie, in which it was contended that rhyme was unsuited to the genius of the English language. In 1603, moreover, Daniel was appointed master of the queen’s revels. In this capacity he brought out a series of masques and pastoral tragi-comedies,—of which were printed A Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, in 1604; The Queen’s Arcadia, an adaptation of Guarini’s Pastor Fido, in 1606; Tethys Festival or the Queenes Wake, written on the occasion of Prince Henry’s becoming a Knight of the Bath, in 1610; and Hymen’s Triumph, in honour 809 of Lord Roxburgh’s marriage in 1615. Meanwhile had appeared, in 1605, Certain Small Poems, with the tragedy of Philotas; the latter was a study, in the same style as Cleopatra, written some five years earlier. This drama brought its author into difficulties, as Philotas, with whom he expressed some sympathy, was taken to represent Essex. In 1607, under the title of Certaine small Workes heretofore divulged by Samuel Daniel, the poet issued a revised version of all his works except Delia and the Civil Wars. In 1609 the Civil Wars had been completed in eight books. In 1612 Daniel published a prose History of England, from the earliest times down to the end of the reign of Edward III. This work afterwards continued, and published in 1617, was very popular with Drayton’s contemporaries. The section dealing with William the Conqueror was published in 1692 as being the work of Sir Walter Raleigh, apparently without sufficient grounds.

DANIEL, SAMUEL (1562-1619), was an English poet and historian. He was the son of a music teacher and was born near Taunton in Somerset in 1562. His brother, John Daniel, was a musician who held various positions at court and authored Songs for the Lute, Viol and Voice (1606). In 1579, Samuel became a commoner at Magdalen Hall, Oxford, where he studied for about three years before dedicating himself to the unrestricted study of poetry and philosophy. Samuel Daniel is listed as the servant of Lord Stafford, the ambassador to France, in 1586, which likely refers to the poet himself. He was first supported and, according to him, taught in verse by the famous countess of Pembroke, whose honor he tirelessly celebrated. He joined her household as a tutor to her son, William Herbert. His first known work, a translation of Paulus Jovius, which includes some original content, was published in 1585. His first known collection of poetry was published in 1592 and features the sonnet sequence dedicated to Delia and the romance titled The Complaint of Rosamond. Twenty-seven of the sonnets had been printed at the end of Sir Philip Sidney’s Astrophel and Stella without the author's permission. Multiple editions of Delia were released in 1592 and were frequently reprinted during Daniel's lifetime. Evidence suggests that Delia lived near Shakespeare's river, the Avon, and the sonnets dedicated to her were inspired by her memory while the poet was in Italy. In a 1594 edition of Delia and Rosamond, the tragedy Cleopatra, a serious piece in the style of classical works, written in alternating rhymed heroic verse and interspersed with formal choral sections, was included. The First Four Books of the Civil Wars, an historical poem in ottava rima, was published in 1595. The bibliography of Daniel’s works is complex, but it appears that it wasn't until 1599 that a volume titled Poetical Essays was published, which included the “Civil Wars,” “Musophilus,” and “A letter from Octavia to Marcus Antonius,” showcasing poems in Daniel's best and most mature style. Around this time, he became a tutor to Anne Clifford, the daughter of the countess of Cumberland. Following Spenser’s death in the same year, Daniel received the somewhat ambiguous title of poet-laureate, which he seems to have quickly resigned in favor of Ben Jonson. The exact circumstances are unclear, but around this time, through the recommendation of his brother-in-law, Giovanni Florio, he gained favor at court and wrote a Panegyric Congratulatorie offered to the King at Burleigh Harrington in Rutlandshire, in ottava rima. This poem was published in 1603, and many copies included his Poetical Epistles to his patrons and an elegant prose essay titled A Defence of Rime (originally printed in 1602) in response to Thomas Campion’s Observations on the Art of English Poesie, which argued that rhyme was unsuitable for English. Additionally, in 1603, Daniel was appointed master of the queen’s revels. In this role, he produced a series of masques and pastoral tragi-comedies, including A Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, published in 1604; The Queen’s Arcadia, an adaptation of Guarini’s Pastor Fido, published in 1606; Tethys Festival or the Queenes Wake, written for Prince Henry’s knighthood in 1610; and Hymen’s Triumph, in honor of Lord Roxburgh’s marriage in 1615. Meanwhile, in 1605, Certain Small Poems were published along with the tragedy Philotas; the latter was written in the same style as Cleopatra about five years earlier. This drama caused controversy for Daniel, as Philotas, with whom he sympathized, was seen as a representation of Essex. In 1607, under the title Certaine small Workes heretofore divulged by Samuel Daniel, the poet released an updated version of all his works except Delia and the Civil Wars. By 1609, the Civil Wars was completed in eight books. In 1612, Daniel published a prose History of England, covering the period from the earliest times to the end of Edward III's reign. This work was later extended and published in 1617, gaining popularity among Drayton’s contemporaries. The section on William the Conqueror was published in 1692 as being written by Sir Walter Raleigh, seemingly without sufficient evidence.

Daniel was made a gentleman-extraordinary and groom of the chamber to Queen Anne, sinecure offices which offered no hindrance to an active literary career. He was now acknowledged as one of the first writers of the time. Shakespeare, Selden and Chapman are named among the few intimates who were permitted to intrude upon the seclusion of a garden-house in Old Street, St Luke’s, where, Fuller tells us, he would “lie hid for some months together, the more retiredly to enjoy the company of the Muses, and then would appear in public to converse with his friends.” Late in life Daniel threw up his titular posts at court and retired to a farm called “The Ridge,” which he rented at Beckington, near Devizes in Wiltshire. Here he died on the 14th of October 1619.

Daniel was appointed a gentleman-extraordinary and groom of the chamber to Queen Anne, positions that didn’t interfere with his busy writing career. He was now recognized as one of the top writers of his time. Shakespeare, Selden, and Chapman are mentioned among the few close friends who were allowed to visit him at his garden house in Old Street, St Luke’s, where, as Fuller says, he would “lie hidden for several months to enjoy the company of the Muses, and then would appear in public to chat with his friends.” Later in life, Daniel gave up his titles at court and moved to a farm called “The Ridge,” which he rented in Beckington, near Devizes in Wiltshire. He passed away on October 14, 1619.

The poetical writings of Daniel are very numerous, but in spite of the eulogies of all the best critics, they were long neglected. This is the more singular since, during the 18th century, when so little Elizabethan literature was read, Daniel retained his poetical prestige. In later times Coleridge, Charles Lamb and others expended some of their most genial criticisms on this poet. Of his multifarious works the sonnets are now, perhaps, most read. They depart from the Italian sonnet form in closing with a couplet, as is the case with most of the sonnets of Surrey and Wyat, but they have a grace and tenderness all their own. Of a higher order is The Complaint of Rosamond, a soliloquy in which the ghost of the murdered woman appears and bewails her fate in stanzas of exquisite pathos. Among the Epistles to Distinguished Persons will be found some of Daniel’s noblest stanzas and most polished verse. The epistle to Lucy, countess of Bedford, is remarkable among those as being composed in genuine terza rima, till then not used in English. Daniel was particularly fond of a four-lined stanza of solemn alternately rhyming iambics, a form of verse distinctly misplaced in his dramas. These, inspired it would seem by like attempts of the countess of Pembroke’s, are hard and frigid; his pastorals are far more pleasing; and Hymen’s Triumph is perhaps the best of all his dramatic writing. An extract from this masque is given in Lamb’s Dramatic Poets, and it was highly praised by Coleridge. In elegiac verse he always excelled, but most of all in his touching address To the Angel Spirit of the Most Excellent Sir Philip Sidney. We must not neglect to quote Musophilus among the most characteristic writings of Daniel. It is a dialogue between a courtier and a man of letters, and is a general defence of learning, and in particular of poetic learning as an instrument in the education of the perfect courtier or man of action. It is addressed to Fulke Greville, and written, with much sententious melody, in a sort of terza rima, or, more properly, ottava rima with the couplet omitted. Daniel was a great reformer in verse, and the introducer of several valuable novelties. It may be broadly said of his style that it is full, easy and stately, without being very animated or splendid. It attains a high average of general excellence, and is content with level flights. As a gnomic writer Daniel approaches Chapman, but is far more musical and coherent. He is wanting in fire and passion, but he is preeminent in scholarly grace and tender, mournful reverie.

The poetic works of Daniel are quite numerous, but despite the praises from top critics, they were mostly overlooked for a long time. This is particularly unusual since, during the 18th century, when Elizabethan literature was seldom read, Daniel still held his poetic reputation. Later, Coleridge, Charles Lamb, and others shared some of their most positive critiques on this poet. Among his many works, the sonnets are perhaps the most widely read now. They differ from the Italian sonnet form by ending with a couplet, similar to most sonnets by Surrey and Wyatt, but they possess a unique grace and tenderness. A higher quality work is The Complaint of Rosamond, a soliloquy where the ghost of the murdered woman appears to lament her fate in stanzas of exquisite emotion. In the Epistles to Distinguished Persons, you’ll find some of Daniel’s finest stanzas and most refined verses. The epistle to Lucy, Countess of Bedford, stands out among them as it is composed in genuine terza rima, which had not been used in English before. Daniel particularly liked a four-line stanza with solemn alternating rhymes, a verse form that feels out of place in his dramas. These, seemingly inspired by similar attempts by the Countess of Pembroke, come off as hard and cold; his pastorals are much more enjoyable, and Hymen’s Triumph might be the best of all his dramatic works. An excerpt from this masque appears in Lamb’s Dramatic Poets, and it received high praise from Coleridge. He excelled in elegiac verse, especially in his poignant address To the Angel Spirit of the Most Excellent Sir Philip Sidney. We should also mention Musophilus among Daniel’s most characteristic writings. It is a dialogue between a courtier and a man of letters, serving as a general defense of learning, particularly poetic learning, as a means of educating the ideal courtier or man of action. It is addressed to Fulke Greville and is written with melodious aphorisms in a form of terza rima, or more accurately, ottava rima, with the couplet left out. Daniel was a significant innovator in verse, introducing several valuable new forms. His style can generally be described as full, easy, and stately, without being overly animated or flashy. It achieves a high standard of overall excellence and is comfortable with steady progress. As a gnomic writer, Daniel is comparable to Chapman but is far more musical and coherent. While he may lack fire and passion, he shines in scholarly grace and tender, sorrowful reflection.

Daniel’s works were edited by A. B. Grosart in 1885-1896.

Daniel’s works were edited by A. B. Grosart from 1885 to 1896.

(E. G.)

DANIELL, JOHN FREDERIC (1700-1845), English chemist and physicist, was born in London on the 12th of March 1790, and in 1831 became the first professor of chemistry at the newly founded King’s College, London. His name is best known for his invention of the Daniell cell (Phil. Trans., 1836), still extensively used for telegraphic and other purposes. He also invented the dew-point hygrometer known by his name (Quar. Journ. Sci., 1820), and a register pyrometer (Phil. Trans., 1830); and in 1830 he erected in the hall of the Royal Society a water-barometer, with which he carried out a large number of observations (Phil. Trans., 1832). A process devised by him for the manufacture of illuminating gas from turpentine and resin was in use in New York for a time. His publications include Meteorological Essays (1823), an Essay on Artificial Climate considered in its Applications to Horticulture (1824), which showed the necessity of a humid atmosphere in hothouses devoted to tropical plants, and an Introduction to the Study of Chemical Philosophy (1839). He died suddenly of apoplexy on the 13th of March 1845, in London, while attending a meeting of the council of the Royal Society, of which he became a fellow in 1813 and foreign secretary in 1839.

Daniell, John Frederic (1700-1845), English chemist and physicist, was born in London on March 12, 1790. In 1831, he became the first professor of chemistry at the newly established King’s College, London. He is best known for his invention of the Daniell cell (Phil. Trans., 1836), which is still widely used for telegraphic and other applications. He also created the dew-point hygrometer named after him (Quar. Journ. Sci., 1820), and a register pyrometer (Phil. Trans., 1830). In 1830, he set up a water-barometer in the hall of the Royal Society, with which he conducted many observations (Phil. Trans., 1832). A method he developed for producing illuminating gas from turpentine and resin was used in New York for a period. His published works include Meteorological Essays (1823), an Essay on Artificial Climate considered in its Applications to Horticulture (1824), which highlighted the importance of a humid environment in hothouses for tropical plants, and an Introduction to the Study of Chemical Philosophy (1839). He died suddenly from a stroke on March 13, 1845, in London while attending a meeting of the Royal Society's council, of which he became a fellow in 1813 and foreign secretary in 1839.


DANIELL, THOMAS (1749-1840), English landscape painter, was born at the Chertsey inn, kept by his father, in 1749, and apprenticed to an heraldic painter. Daniell, however, was animated with a love of the romantic and beautiful in architecture and nature. Up to 1784 he painted topographical subjects and flower pieces. By this time his two nephews (see below) had come under his influence, the younger, Samuel, being apprenticed to Medland the landscape engraver, and the elder, William, being under his own care. In this year (1784) he embarked for India accompanied by William, and found at Calcutta ample encouragement. Here he remained ten years, and on returning to London he published his largest work, Oriental Scenery, in six large volumes, not completed till 1808. From 1795 till 1828 he continued to exhibit Eastern subjects, temples, jungle hunts, &c., and at the same time continued the publication of illustrated works. These are—Views of Calcutta; Oriental Scenery, 144 plates; Views in Egypt; Excavations at Ellora; Picturesque Voyage to China. These were for the most part executed in aquatint. He was elected an Academician in 1799, fellow of the Royal Society about the same time, and at different times member of several minor societies. His nephews both died before him; his Indian period had made him independent, and he lived a bachelor life in much respect at Kensington till his death on the 19th of March 1840.

DANIELL, THOMAS (1749-1840), an English landscape painter, was born at the Chertsey inn, run by his father, in 1749, and was apprenticed to a heraldic painter. Daniell, however, was inspired by a love for the romantic and beautiful aspects of architecture and nature. Up until 1784, he focused on painting topographical subjects and flower pieces. By this time, his two nephews (see below) had come under his influence, with the younger, Samuel, apprenticed to Medland the landscape engraver, and the elder, William, under his own guidance. In that year (1784), he traveled to India with William and found great encouragement in Calcutta. He stayed there for ten years, and upon returning to London, he published his largest work, Oriental Scenery, which took six large volumes to finish, completed by 1808. From 1795 to 1828, he continued to exhibit Eastern subjects, including temples and jungle hunts, while also publishing illustrated works. These include—Views of Calcutta; Oriental Scenery, with 144 plates; Views in Egypt; Excavations at Ellora; and Picturesque Voyage to China. Most of these were executed in aquatint. He became an Academician in 1799 and a fellow of the Royal Society around the same time, and also held memberships in several smaller societies. Both of his nephews passed away before him; his time in India had made him financially independent, and he lived a respected bachelor life in Kensington until his death on March 19, 1840.

William Daniell (1769-1837), his nephew, was fourteen when he accompanied his uncle to India. His own publications, engraved in aquatint, were—Voyage to India; Zoography; Animated Nature; Views of London; Views of Bootan, a work prepared from his uncle’s sketches; and a Voyage Round Great Britain, which occupied him several years. The British Institution made him an award of £100 for a “Battle of Trafalgar,” and he was elected R.A. in 1822. He turned to panorama painting before his death, beginning in 1832 with Madras, the picture being enlivened by a representation of the Hindu mode of taming wild elephants.

William Daniell (1769-1837), his nephew, was fourteen when he traveled to India with his uncle. His own works, created using aquatint, included Voyage to India, Zoography, Animated Nature, Views of London, Views of Bootan, a project based on his uncle’s sketches, and Voyage Round Great Britain, which took him several years to complete. The British Institution awarded him £100 for a painting titled “Battle of Trafalgar,” and he was elected R.A. in 1822. Before his death, he shifted to panorama painting, starting in 1832 with a work depicting Madras, featuring a scene of the Hindu method of taming wild elephants.

Samuel Daniell, William’s younger brother, was brought up as an engraver, and first appears as an exhibitor in 1792. A few years later he went to the Cape and travelled into the interior of Africa, with his sketching materials in his haversack. The drawings he made there were published, after his return, in his African Scenery. He did not rest long at home, but left for Ceylon in 1806, where he spent the remaining years of his life, publishing The Scenery, Animals and Natives of Ceylon.

Samuel Daniell, William’s younger brother, was trained as an engraver and first showed his work in 1792. A few years later, he went to the Cape and traveled into the interior of Africa with his sketching materials in his backpack. The drawings he made there were published after his return in his African Scenery. He didn’t stay home for long and left for Ceylon in 1806, where he spent the rest of his life, publishing The Scenery, Animals and Natives of Ceylon.


DANNAT, WILLIAM T. (1853-  ), American artist, was born in New York city in 1853. He was a pupil of the Royal Academy of Munich and of Munkacsy, and became an accomplished draughtsman and a distinguished figure and portrait painter. He early attracted attention with sketches and pictures made in Spain, and a large composition, “The Quartette,” now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, was one of the successes of the Paris Salon of 1884. Dannat settled in Paris, 810 became an officer of the Legion of Honour, and is represented in the Luxembourg.

DANNAT, WILLIAM T. (1853-  ), American artist, was born in New York City in 1853. He studied at the Royal Academy of Munich and with Munkacsy, becoming a skilled draftsman and a well-known figure and portrait painter. He quickly gained attention for sketches and artworks created in Spain, and a large piece, “The Quartette,” which is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, was one of the highlights of the Paris Salon in 1884. Dannat moved to Paris, 810 became an officer of the Legion of Honour, and is represented in the Luxembourg.


DANNECKER, JOHANN HEINRICH VON (1758-1841), German sculptor, was born at Stuttgart, where his father was employed in the stables of the duke of Württemberg, on the 15th of October 1758. The boy was entered in the military school at the age of thirteen, but after two years he was allowed to take his own taste for art. We find him at once associating with the young sculptors Scheffauer and Le Jeune, the painters Guibal and Harper, and also with Schiller, and the musician Zumsteeg. His busts of some of these are good; that of Schiller is well known. In his eighteenth year he carried off the prize at the Concours with his model of Milo of Crotona. On this the duke made him sculptor to the palace (1780), and for some time he was employed on child-angels and caryatides for the decoration of the reception rooms. In 1783 he left for Paris with Scheffauer, and placed himself under Pajou. His Mars, a sitting figure sent home to Stuttgart, marks this period; and we next find him, still travelling with his friend, at Rome in 1785, where he settled down to work hard for five years. Goethe and Herder were then in Rome and became his friends, as well as Canova, who was the hero of the day, and who had undoubtedly a great authoritative influence on his style. His marble statues of Ceres and Bacchus were done at this time. These are now in the Residenz-schloss, at Stuttgart. On his return to Stuttgart, which he never afterwards quitted except for short trips to Paris, Vienna and Zürich, the double influence of his admiration for Canova and his study of the antique is apparent in his works. The first was a girl lamenting her dead bird, which pretty light motive was much admired. Afterwards, Sappho, in marble for the Lustschloss, and two offering-bearers for the Jagdschloss; Hector, now in the museum, not in marble; the complaint of Ceres, from Schiller’s poem; a statue of Christ, worthy of mention for its nobility, which has been skilfully engraved by Amsler; Psyche; kneeling water-nymph; Love, a favourite he had to repeat. These stock subjects with sculptors had freshness of treatment; and the Ariadne, done a little later, especially had a charm of novelty which has made it a European favourite in a reduced size. It was repeated for the banker Von Bethmann in Frankfort, and it now appears the ornament of the Bethmann Museum. Many of the illustrious men of the time were modelled by him. The original marble of Schiller is now at Weimar; after the poet’s death it was again modelled in colossal size. Lavater, Metternich, Countess Stephanie of Baden, General Benkendorf and others are much prized. Dannecker was director of the Gallery of Stuttgart, and received many academic and other distinctions. His death in 1841 was preceded by a period of mental failure.

DANNECKER, JOHANN HEINRICH VON (1758-1841), German sculptor, was born in Stuttgart, where his father worked in the stables of the Duke of Württemberg, on October 15, 1758. At thirteen, he entered military school, but after two years, he was allowed to pursue his passion for art. He quickly started connecting with young sculptors Scheffauer and Le Jeune, painters Guibal and Harper, and poet Schiller, as well as musician Zumsteeg. His busts of some of these figures are well regarded, with his bust of Schiller being particularly notable. At eighteen, he won a prize at the Concours for his model of Milo of Crotona. After this, the duke appointed him sculptor to the palace in 1780, and he worked on child angels and caryatids for the reception rooms. In 1783, he went to Paris with Scheffauer and trained under Pajou. His Mars, a seated figure sent back to Stuttgart, represents this period. Next, still traveling with his friend, he settled in Rome in 1785, where he worked hard for five years. During this time, Goethe and Herder were also in Rome and became his friends, as did Canova, the celebrity of the day, who greatly influenced his style. He created marble statues of Ceres and Bacchus during this time, which are now housed in the Residenz-schloss in Stuttgart. Upon returning to Stuttgart, which he rarely left except for brief visits to Paris, Vienna, and Zürich, the twin influences of his admiration for Canova and his study of the classics are evident in his work. His first notable piece was a girl mourning her dead bird, a light-hearted motif that received much admiration. He later created Sappho in marble for the Lustschloss, among other works, including two offering bearers for the Jagdschloss, Hector (now in the museum, but not in marble), a depiction of Ceres's grief from Schiller’s poem, and a noteworthy statue of Christ, which was skillfully engraved by Amsler; also Psyche, a kneeling water nymph, and Love, a favorite subject that he often revisited. These common themes among sculptors were treated with a fresh approach, and his later work, Ariadne, had such a charm that it became a European favorite when made in a smaller size. It was replicated for banker Von Bethmann in Frankfurt and now adorns the Bethmann Museum. He also sculpted many prominent figures of his time. The original marble of Schiller is in Weimar, and after the poet’s death, it was re-sculpted in a colossal size. Lavater, Metternich, Countess Stephanie of Baden, General Benkendorf, and others are also highly valued. Dannecker served as the director of the Gallery of Stuttgart and received numerous academic and other honors. He passed away in 1841 after experiencing a period of mental decline.


DANNEWERK, or Danewerk (Danish, Dannevirke or Danevirke, “Danes’ rampart”), the ancient frontier rampart of the Danes against the Germans, extending 10½ m. from just south of the town of Schleswig to the marshes of the river Trene near the village of Hollingstedt. The rampart was begun by Guðoðr (Godefridus), king of Vestfold, early in the 9th century. In 934 it was passed by the German king Henry I., after which it was extended by King Harold Bluetooth (940-986), but was again stormed by the emperor Otto II. in 974. The chronicler Saxo Grammaticus mentions in his Gesta Danorum the “rampart of Jutland” (Jutiae moenia) as having been once more extended by Valdemar the Great (1157-1182), which has been cited among the proofs that Schleswig (Sønderjylland) forms an integral part of Jutland (Manuel hist. de la question de Slesvig, 1906). After the union of Schleswig and Holstein under the Danish crown, the Danevirke fell into decay, but in 1848 it was hastily strengthened by the Danes, who were, however, unable to hold it in face of the superiority of the Prussian artillery, and on the 23rd of April it was stormed. From 1850 onwards it was again repaired and strengthened at great cost, and was considered impregnable; but in the war of 1864 the Prussians turned it by crossing the Schlei, and it was abandoned by the Danes on the 6th of February without a blow. It was thereupon destroyed by the Prussians; in spite of which, however, a long line of imposing ruins still remains. The systematic excavation of these, begun in 1900, has yielded some notable finds, especially of valuable runic inscriptions (F. de Jessen, La Question de Slesvig, pp. 25, 44-50, &c.).

DANNEWERK, or Danewerk (Danish, Dannevirke or Danevirke, “Danes’ rampart”) is the ancient defensive structure built by the Danes against the Germans, stretching 10½ miles from just south of Schleswig to the marshes of the river Trene near the village of Hollingstedt. The rampart was initiated by Guðoðr (Godefridus), the king of Vestfold, in the early 9th century. In 934, it was crossed by the German king Henry I, after which King Harold Bluetooth (940-986) expanded it, but it was attacked again by Emperor Otto II in 974. The historian Saxo Grammaticus mentions the “rampart of Jutland” (Jutiae moenia) as having been further extended by Valdemar the Great (1157-1182), which has been referenced as evidence that Schleswig (Sønderjylland) is a fundamental part of Jutland (Manuel hist. de la question de Slesvig, 1906). After Schleswig and Holstein united under the Danish crown, the Danevirke declined, but in 1848 it was quickly reinforced by the Danes, who ultimately could not hold it against the superior Prussian artillery, leading to its storming on April 23rd. From 1850 onward, it was repaired and bolstered at great expense, being deemed impregnable; however, during the war of 1864, the Prussians bypassed it by crossing the Schlei, causing the Danes to abandon it on February 6th without a fight. It was subsequently destroyed by the Prussians; nevertheless, a long line of impressive ruins still exists. The systematic excavation of these ruins, which started in 1900, has produced several significant finds, especially valuable runic inscriptions (F. de Jessen, La Question de Slesvig, pp. 25, 44-50, &c.).

See Lorenzen, Dannevirke og Omegn (2nd ed., Copenhagen, 1864); H. Handelmann, Das Dannewerk (Kiel, 1885); Philippsen and Sünksen, Führer durch das Danewerk (Hamburg, 1903).

See Lorenzen, Dannevirke og Omegn (2nd ed., Copenhagen, 1864); H. Handelmann, Das Dannewerk (Kiel, 1885); Philippsen and Sünksen, Führer durch das Danewerk (Hamburg, 1903).


DANSVILLE, a village of Livingston county, New York, U.S.A., 49 m. S. of Rochester, on the Canaseraga Creek. Pop. (1890) 3758; (1900) 3633, of whom 417 were foreign-born; (1905) 3908; (1910) 3938. The village is served by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, and the Dansville & Mount Morris railways. At Dansville is the Jackson Health Resort, a large sanatorium, with which a nurses’ training school is connected. There is a public library. The village has large nurseries and vineyards, flour and paper mills, a large printing establishment, a foundry, and a shoe factory. Dansville, named in honour of Daniel P. Faulkner, was settled about 1800, and was incorporated in 1845.

DANSVILLE, is a village in Livingston County, New York, U.S.A., located 49 miles south of Rochester, along the Canaseraga Creek. Population: (1890) 3,758; (1900) 3,633, of which 417 were foreign-born; (1905) 3,908; (1910) 3,938. The village is served by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, and the Dansville & Mount Morris railroads. Dansville is home to the Jackson Health Resort, a large sanatorium connected to a nurses’ training school. There is also a public library. The village features large nurseries and vineyards, flour and paper mills, a major printing business, a foundry, and a shoe factory. Dansville, named after Daniel P. Faulkner, was settled around 1800 and incorporated in 1845.


DANTE, Dante (or Durante) Alighieri (1265-1321), the greatest of Italian poets, was born at Florence about the middle of May 1265. He was descended from an ancient family, but from one which at any rate for several generations had belonged to the burgher and not to the knightly class. His biographers have attempted on very slight grounds to deduce his origin from the Frangipani, one of the oldest senatorial families of Rome. We can affirm with greater certainty that he was connected with the Elisei who took part in the building of Florence under Charles the Great. Dante himself does not, with the exception of a few obscure and scattered allusions, carry his ancestry beyond the warrior Cacciaguida, whom he met in the sphere of Mars (Par. xv. 87, foll.). Of Cacciaguida’s family nothing is known. The name, as he told Dante (Par. xv. 139, 5), was given him at his baptism; it has a Teutonic ring. The family may well have sprung from one of the barons who, as Villani tells us, remained behind Otto I. It has been noted that the phrase “Tonde venner quivi” (xvi. 44) seems to imply that they were not Florentines. He further tells his descendant that he was born in the year 1106 (or, if another reading of xvi, 37, 38 be adopted, in 1091), and that he married an Aldighieri from the valley of the Po. Here the German strain appears unmistakably; the name Aldighiero (Aldiger) being purely Teutonic. He also mentions two brothers, Moronte and Eliseo, and that he accompanied the emperor Conrad III. upon his crusade into the Holy Land, where he died (1147) among the infidels. From Eliseo was probably descended the branch of the Elisei; from Aldighiero, son of Cacciaguida, the branch of the Alighieri. Bellincione, son of Aldighiero, was the grandfather of Dante. His father was a second Aldighiero, a lawyer of some reputation. By his first wife, Lapa di Chiarissimo Cialuffii, this Aldighiero had a son Francesco; by his second, Donna Bella, whose family name is not known, Dante and a daughter. Thus the family of Dante held a most respectable position among the citizens of his beloved city; but had it been reckoned in the very first rank they could not have remained in Florence after the defeat of the Guelphs at Montaperti in 1260. It is clear, however, that Dante’s mother at least did so remain, for Dante was born in Florence in 1265. The heads of the Guelph party did not return till 1267.

DANTE, Dante (or Durante) Alighieri (1265-1321), the greatest of Italian poets, was born in Florence around mid-May 1265. He came from an old family, but one that had been part of the middle class rather than the nobility for several generations. His biographers have tried, with little evidence, to trace his lineage back to the Frangipani, one of Rome's oldest senatorial families. We can more confidently say that he was related to the Elisei, who contributed to the building of Florence under Charlemagne. Dante himself, aside from a few vague and scattered references, can only trace his ancestry back to the warrior Cacciaguida, whom he encountered in the sphere of Mars (Par. xv. 87, foll.). Nothing is known about Cacciaguida's family. As he told Dante (Par. xv. 139, 5), his name was given at his baptism, and it has a Teutonic sound. The family likely descended from one of the barons who, as Villani notes, stayed behind with Otto I. It has been pointed out that the phrase “Tonde venner quivi” (xvi. 44) suggests they were not originally from Florence. He also informs his descendant that he was born in 1106 (or, according to another interpretation of xvi, 37, 38, in 1091) and that he married an Aldighieri from the Po Valley. Here the German influence is clear, as the name Aldighiero (Aldiger) is purely Teutonic. He also mentions two brothers, Moronte and Eliseo, and that he accompanied Emperor Conrad III. on his crusade to the Holy Land, where he died (1147) among the infidels. The branch of the Elisei probably descended from Eliseo; the branch of the Alighieri came from Aldighiero, Cacciaguida's son. Bellincione, Aldighiero's son, was Dante's grandfather. His father was also named Aldighiero, a lawyer of some reputation. By his first wife, Lapa di Chiarissimo Cialuffii, this Aldighiero had a son, Francesco; by his second wife, Donna Bella, whose family name is unknown, he had Dante and a daughter. Thus, Dante's family held a very respectable position among the citizens of his beloved city; however, had they been considered among the very top ranks, they could not have remained in Florence after the Guelphs' defeat at Montaperti in 1260. It is clear, however, that at least Dante’s mother remained there, as Dante was born in Florence in 1265. The leaders of the Guelph party did not return until 1267.

Dante was born under the sign of the twins, “the glorious stars pregnant with virtue, to whom he owes his genius such as it is.” Astrologers considered this constellation as favourable to literature and science, and Brunetto Latini, the philosopher and diplomatist, his instructor, tells him in the Inferno (xv. 25, foll.) that, if he follows its guidance, he cannot fail to reach the harbour of fame. Boccaccio relates that before his birth his mother dreamed that she lay under a very lofty laurel, growing in a green meadow, by a very clear fountain, when she felt the pangs of childbirth,—that her child, feeding on the berries which fell from the laurel, and on the waters of the fountain, in a very short time became a shepherd, and attempted to reach the leaves of the laurel, the fruit of which had nurtured him,—that, trying to obtain them he fell, and rose up, no longer a man, but in the guise of a peacock. We know little of Dante’s boyhood except that he was a hard student and was profoundly influenced by 811 Brunetto Latini. Boccaccio tells us that he became very familiar with Virgil, Horace, Ovid and Statius, and all other famous poets. From the age of eighteen he, like most cultivated young men of that age, wrote poetry assiduously, in the philosophical amatory style of which his friend, older by many years than himself, Guido Cavalcanti, was a great exponent, and of which Dante regarded Guido Guinicelli of Bologna as the master (Purg. xxvi. 97, 8). Leonardo Bruni of Arezzo, writing a hundred years or more after his death, says that “by study of philosophy, of theology, astrology, arithmetic and geometry, by reading of history, by the turning over many curious books, watching and sweating in his studies, he acquired the science which he was to adorn and explain in his verses.” Of Brunetto Latini Dante himself speaks with the most loving gratitude and affection, though he does not hesitate to brand his vices with infamy. Under such guidance Dante became master of all the science of his age at a time when it was not impossible to know all that could be known. He had some knowledge of drawing; at any rate he tells us that on the anniversary of the death of Beatrice he drew an angel on a tablet. He was an intimate friend of Giotto, who has immortalized his youthful lineaments in the chapel of the Bargello, and who is recorded to have drawn from his friend’s inspiration the allegories of Virtue and Vice which fringe the frescoes of the Scrovegni Chapel at Padua. Nor was he less sensible to the delights of music. Milton had not a keener ear for the loud uplifted angel trumpets and the immortal harps of golden wires of the cherubim and seraphim; and the English poet was proud to compare his own friendship with Henry Lawes with that between Dante and Casella, “met in the milder shades of purgatory.” Of his companions the most intimate and sympathetic were the lawyer-poet Cino of Pistoia, Lapo Gianni, Guido Cavalcanti and others, similarly gifted and dowered with like tastes, who moved in the lively and acute society of Florence, and felt with him the first warm flush of the new spirit which was soon to pass over Europe. He has written no sweeter or more melodious lines than those in which he expresses the wish that he, with Guido and Lapo, might be wafted by enchantment over the sea wheresoever they might list, shielded from tempest and foul weather, in such contentment that they should wish to live always in one mind, and that the good enchanter should bring Monna Vanna and Monna Bice and that other lady into their barque, where they should for ever discourse of love and be for ever happy. It is a wonderful thing (says Leonardo Bruni) that, though he studied without intermission, it would not have appeared to anyone that he studied, from his joyous mien and youthful conversation. Like Milton he was trained in the strictest academical education which the age afforded; but Dante lived under a warmer sun and brighter skies, and found in the rich variety and gaiety of his early life a defence against the withering misfortunes of his later years. Milton felt too early the chill breath of Puritanism, and the serious musing on the experience of life, which saddened the verse of both poets, deepened in his case rather into grave and desponding melancholy, than into the fierce scorn and invective which disillusion wrung from Dante.

Dante was born under the sign of Gemini, “the glorious stars full of virtue, from which he derives his talent as it is.” Astrologers believed this constellation was favorable for literature and science, and his teacher, the philosopher and diplomat Brunetto Latini, tells him in the Inferno (xv. 25, foll.) that if he follows its lead, he will surely reach the shores of fame. Boccaccio recounts that before he was born, Dante's mother dreamed she was lying beneath a tall laurel tree in a green meadow, by a clear fountain, when she began to feel labor pains. In her dream, her child, who was feeding on the laurel berries and drinking from the fountain, quickly became a shepherd trying to reach the laurel’s leaves, whose fruit had nourished him. As he attempted to get them, he fell and, rising again, was no longer a man but had taken the form of a peacock. We know little about Dante’s childhood, except that he was a diligent student profoundly influenced by Brunetto Latini. Boccaccio tells us Dante became well acquainted with Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Statius, and all other renowned poets. From the age of eighteen, like many educated young men of his time, he diligently wrote poetry in the philosophical and romantic style, widely practiced by his friend Guido Cavalcanti, who was many years older than him, and whom Dante considered Bologna’s master, Guido Guinicelli (Purg. xxvi. 97, 8). Leonardo Bruni of Arezzo, writing over a hundred years after his death, states that through studying philosophy, theology, astrology, arithmetic, and geometry, reading history, exploring many intriguing books, and diligently applying himself to his studies, he gained the knowledge he would later explain and embellish in his verses. Dante himself speaks of Brunetto Latini with deep affection and gratitude, although he doesn’t shy away from condemning his flaws. Under such mentorship, Dante mastered all the knowledge of his time when it was still possible to learn everything that was known. He had some skills in drawing; at least, he tells us that on the anniversary of Beatrice's death, he drew an angel on a tablet. He was a close friend of Giotto, who immortalized his youthful features in the Bargello Chapel and was said to have drawn inspiration from Dante for the allegories of Virtue and Vice that adorn the frescoes of the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua. He was also attuned to the joys of music. Milton had just as keen an ear for the loud angelic trumpets and the immortal harps of the cherubim and seraphim; and the English poet was proud to compare his friendship with Henry Lawes to that between Dante and Casella, “meeting in the gentler shades of purgatory.” Among his closest and most understanding companions were the lawyer-poet Cino of Pistoia, Lapo Gianni, Guido Cavalcanti, and others with similar talents and tastes, who participated in the lively and sharp society of Florence and shared in the initial thrill of the new spirit that was soon to sweep across Europe. He wrote no sweeter or more melodic lines than those in which he expresses the hope that he, along with Guido and Lapo, could be magically carried over the sea wherever they wished, shielded from storms and bad weather, in such happiness that they would want to always think as one, and that a good enchanter would bring Monna Vanna and Monna Bice and another lady into their boat, where they would forever talk about love and be eternally joyful. It is remarkable (says Leonardo Bruni) that despite his relentless studying, it wouldn’t have been apparent to anyone that he was studying, given his cheerful demeanor and youthful conversations. Like Milton, he received the strictest academic training of his time; however, Dante lived under a warmer sun and brighter skies, finding in the rich variety and joy of his early life a buffer against the harsh misfortunes that would come later. Milton felt the chilling touch of Puritanism too soon, and the serious reflection on life’s experiences that saddened the verses of both poets deepened for him into a grave and despondent melancholy, rather than the fierce contempt and criticism that Dante’s disillusionment provoked.

We must now consider the political circumstances in which lay the activity of Dante’s manhood. From 1115, the year of the death of Matilda countess of Tuscany, to 1215, Florence enjoyed a nearly uninterrupted peace. Political life. Attached to the Guelph party, it remained undivided against itself. But in 1215 a private feud between the families of Buondelmonte and Uberti introduced into the city the horrors of civil war. Villani (lib. v. cap. 38) relates how Buondelmonte de’ Buondelmonti, a noble youth of Florence, being engaged to marry a lady of the house of Amidei, allied himself instead to a Donati, and how Buondelmonte was attacked and killed by the Amidei and Uberti at the foot of the Ponte Vecchio, close by the pilaster which bears the image of Mars. “The death of Messer Buondelmonte was the occasion and beginning of the accursed parties of Guelphs and Ghibellines in Florence.” Of the seventy-two families then in Florence thirty-nine became Guelph under the leadership of the Buondelmonte and the rest Ghibelline under the Uberti. The strife of parties was for a while allayed by the war against Pisa in 1222, and the constant struggles against Siena; but in 1248 Frederick II. sent into the city his natural son Frederick “of Antioch,” with 1600 German knights. The Guelphs were driven away from the town, and took refuge, part in Montevarchi, part in Capraia. The Ghibellines, masters of Florence, behaved with great severity, and destroyed the towers and palaces of the Guelph nobles. At last the people became impatient. They rose in rebellion, reduced the powers of the podestà, elected a captain of the people to manage the internal affairs of the city, with a council of twelve, established a more democratic constitution, and, encouraged by the death of Frederick II. in December 1250, recalled the exiled Guelphs. Manfred, the bastard son of Frederick, pursued the policy of his father. He stimulated the Ghibelline Uberti to rebel against their position of subjection. A rising of the vanquished party was put down by the people, in July 1258 the Ghibellines were expelled from the town, and the towers of the Uberti razed to the ground. The exiles betook themselves to the friendly city of Siena. Manfred sent them a reinforcement of German horse, under his kinsman Count Giordano Lancia. The Florentines, after vainly demanding their surrender, despatched an army against them. On the 4th of September 1260 was fought the great battle of Montaperti, which dyed the Arbia red, and in which the Guelphs were entirely defeated. The hand which held the banner of the republic was sundered by the sword of a traitor (Inf. xxxii. 106). For the first time in the history of Florence the Carroccio was taken. Florence lay at the mercy of her enemies. A parliament was held at Empoli, in which the deputies of Siena, Pisa, Arezzo and other Tuscan towns consulted on the best means of securing their new war power. They voted that the accursed Guelph city should be blotted out. But Farinata degli Uberti stood up in their midst, bold and defiant as when he stood erect among the sepulchres of hell, and said that if, from the whole number of the Florentines, he alone should remain, he would not suffer, whilst he could wield a sword, that his country should be destroyed, and that, if it were necessary to die a thousand times for her, a thousand times would he be ready to encounter death. Help came to the Guelphs from an unexpected quarter. Clement IV., elected pope in 1265, offered the crown of Apulia and Sicily to Charles of Anjou. The French prince, passing rapidly through Lombardy, Romagna and the Marches, reached Rome by way of Spoleto, was crowned on the 6th of January 1266, and on the 23rd of February defeated and killed Manfred at Benevento. In such a storm of conflict did Dante first see the light. In 1267 the Guelphs were recalled, but instead of settling down in peace with their opponents they summoned Charles of Anjou to vengeance, and the Ghibellines were driven out. The meteor passage of Conradin gave hope to the imperial party, which was quenched when the head of the fair-haired boy fell on the scaffold at Naples. Pope after pope tried in vain to make peace. Gregory X. placed the rebellious city under an interdict; in 1278 Cardinal Latini by order of Nicholas III. effected a truce, which lasted for four years. The city was to be governed by a committee of fourteen buonomini, on which the Guelphs were to have a small majority. In 1282 the constitution of Florence received the final form which it retained till the collapse of freedom. From the three arti maggiori were chosen six priors, in whose hands was placed the government of the republic. Before the end of the century, seven greater arts were recognized, including the speziali,—druggists and dealers in all manner of oriental goods, and in books—among whom Dante afterwards enrolled himself. They remained in office for two months, and during that time lived and shared a common table in the public palace. We shall see what influence this office had upon the fate of Dante. The success of the “Sicilian Vespers” (March 1282), the death of Charles of Anjou (January 1285), and of Martin IV. in the following March, roused again the courage of the Ghibellines. They entered Arezzo, where the Ghibellines at present had the upper hand, and threatened to drive out the Guelphs from Tuscany. Skirmishes and raids, of which Villani and Bruni have left accounts, went on through the winter of 1288-1289, forming a prelude to the great 812 battle of Campaldino in the following summer. Then it was that Dante saw “horsemen moving camp and commencing the assault, and holding muster, and the march of foragers, the shock of tournaments, and race of jousts, now with trumpets and now with bells, with drums and castle signals, with native things and foreign” (Inf. xxii. 1, foll.). On the 11th of June 1289, at Campaldino near Poppi, in the Casentino, the Ghibellines were utterly defeated. They never again recovered their hold on Florence, but the violence of faction survived under other names. In a letter quoted, though not at first hand, by Leonardo Bruni, which is not now extant, Dante is said to mention that he himself fought with distinction at Campaldino. He was present shortly afterwards at the battle of Caprona (Inf. xxi. 95, foll.), and returned in September 1289 to his studies and his love. His peace was of short duration. On the 9th of June 1290 died Beatrice, whose mortal love had guided him for thirteen years, and whose immortal spirit purified his later life, and revealed to him the mysteries of Paradise.

We now need to look at the political climate during Dante's adult years. From 1115, the year Matilda, countess of Tuscany, died, until 1215, Florence enjoyed nearly uninterrupted peace. Politics. Aligned with the Guelph party, it remained united. However, in 1215, a personal feud between the Buondelmonte and Uberti families brought the terrors of civil war to the city. Villani (lib. v. cap. 38) recounts how Buondelmonte de’ Buondelmonti, a noble young man from Florence, who was engaged to marry a woman from the Amidei family, instead allied himself with the Donati. This led to Buondelmonte being attacked and killed by the Amidei and Uberti at the foot of the Ponte Vecchio, near the column that bears the image of Mars. “The death of Messer Buondelmonte was the starting point for the cursed factions of Guelphs and Ghibellines in Florence.” Of the seventy-two families in Florence at the time, thirty-nine became Guelphs under the leadership of the Buondelmonte family, while the rest became Ghibelline under the Uberti family. The conflict between the factions was temporarily eased by the war against Pisa in 1222 and ongoing struggles against Siena. However, in 1248, Frederick II sent his illegitimate son Frederick “of Antioch,” along with 1,600 German knights, into the city. The Guelphs were chased out, finding refuge in Montevarchi and Capraia. The Ghibellines, now in control of Florence, acted harshly, destroying the towers and palaces of the Guelph nobles. Eventually, the people grew restless. They revolted, reduced the power of the podestà, elected a captain of the people to manage the city's internal affairs along with a council of twelve, established a more democratic constitution, and, spurred by the death of Frederick II. in December 1250, recalled the exiled Guelphs. Manfred, Frederick's illegitimate son, continued his father's policies and encouraged the Ghibelline Uberti to rebel against their subjugation. The uprising of the defeated faction was suppressed by the people, and in July 1258, the Ghibellines were expelled from the city, with their towers demolished. The exiles fled to the friendly city of Siena. Manfred sent them reinforcements of German cavalry led by his relative Count Giordano Lancia. The Florentines, after fruitlessly demanding their return, dispatched an army against them. On September 4, 1260, the significant battle of Montaperti was fought, which turned the Arbia red, and where the Guelphs suffered complete defeat. The hand that held the republic's banner was severed by a traitor's sword (Inf. xxxii. 106). For the first time in Florence's history, the Carroccio was captured. Florence found herself at her enemies' mercy. A parliament was convened in Empoli, where delegates from Siena, Pisa, Arezzo, and other Tuscan towns discussed how to best secure their newfound military power. They voted to erase the cursed Guelph city. But Farinata degli Uberti, bold and defiant like when he stood among the tombs of hell, declared that even if he alone remained of all the Florentines, he would not allow his country to be destroyed. If it meant dying a thousand times for her, a thousand times, he was ready to face death. Aid came to the Guelphs from an unforeseen source. Pope Clement IV, elected in 1265, offered the crowns of Apulia and Sicily to Charles of Anjou. The French prince swiftly traveled through Lombardy, Romagna, and the Marches, reaching Rome via Spoleto, was crowned on January 6, 1266, and defeated and killed Manfred at Benevento on February 23. In such turmoil, Dante was born. In 1267, the Guelphs were recalled, but rather than making peace with their enemies, they summoned Charles of Anjou for vengeance, leading to the expulsion of the Ghibellines. The temporary rise of Conradin gave hope to the imperial party, which was extinguished when the fair-haired boy's head fell on the scaffold in Naples. Pope after pope attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate peace. Gregory X placed the rebellious city under an interdict; in 1278, Cardinal Latini, on Nicholas III's orders, brokered a truce that lasted four years. The city was governed by a committee of fourteen buonomini, with a slight majority from the Guelphs. In 1282, Florence's constitution took final form, which it maintained until freedom collapsed. Six priors were chosen from the three major guilds maggiori, entrusted with governing the republic. By the end of the century, seven greater guilds were recognized, including the speziali—the pharmacists and merchants of various Oriental goods and books—among whom Dante later enrolled. They remained in power for two months, living and sharing meals in the public palace. We'll see how this position influenced Dante's fate. The success of the “Sicilian Vespers” (March 1282), the death of Charles of Anjou (January 1285), and Martin IV.'s death the following March reignited the Ghibellines' spirits. They entered Arezzo, which the Ghibellines currently controlled, and threatened to expel the Guelphs from Tuscany. Skirmishes and raids, documented by Villani and Bruni, occurred throughout the winter of 1288-1289, setting the stage for the great battle of Campaldino the following summer. At that time, Dante witnessed “horsemen moving camp, beginning the attack, holding muster, foraging, the clash of tournaments, and races of jousts, with trumpets and bells, drums and castle signals, with local and foreign things” (Inf. xxii. 1, foll.). On June 11, 1289, at Campaldino near Poppi in the Casentino, the Ghibellines faced utter defeat. They never regained control of Florence, but factional violence continued under different names. In a letter cited, though not firsthand, by Leonardo Bruni, which no longer exists, Dante reportedly mentioned that he fought with distinction at Campaldino. He was later present at the battle of Caprona (Inf. xxi. 95, foll.) and returned in September 1289 to his studies and his love. His peace was short-lived. On June 9, 1290, Beatrice, his mortal love who had guided him for thirteen years and whose immortal spirit purified his later life and unveiled the mysteries of Paradise, died.

Dante had first met Beatrice Portinari at the house of her father Folco on May-day 1274. In his own words, “already nine times after my birth the heaven of light had returned as it were to the same point, when there appeared to my eyes the glorious lady of my mind, who was by many called Beatrice who knew not what to call her. She had already been so long in this life that already in its time the starry heaven had moved towards the east the twelfth part of a degree, so that she appeared to me about the beginning of her ninth year, and I saw her about the end of my ninth year. Her dress on that day was of a most noble colour, a subdued and goodly crimson, girdled and adorned in such sort as best suited with her tender age. At that moment I saw most truly that the spirit of life which hath its dwelling in the secretest chamber of the heart began to tremble so violently that the least pulses of my body shook therewith; and in trembling it said these words, ‘Ecce deus fortior me qui veniens dominabitur mihi.’” In the Vita Nuova is written the story of his passion from its commencement to within a year after the lady’s death (June 9th, 1290). He saw Beatrice only once or twice, and she probably knew little of him. She married Simone de’ Bardi. But the worship of her lover was stronger for the remoteness of its subject. The last chapter of the Vita Nuova relates how, after the lapse of a year, “it was given me to behold a wonderful vision, wherein I saw things which determined me to say nothing further of this blessed one until such time as I could discourse more worthily concerning her. And to this end I labour all I can, as she in truth knoweth. Therefore if it be His pleasure through whom is the life of all things that my life continue with me a few years, it is my hope that I shall yet write concerning her what hath not before been written of any woman. After the which may it seem good unto Him who is the master of grace that my spirit should go hence to behold the glory of its lady, to wit, of that blessed Beatrice who now gloriously gazes on the countenance of Him qui est per omnia saecula benedictus.” In the Convito he resumes the story of his life. “When I had lost the first delight of my soul (that is, Beatrice) I remained so pierced with sadness that no comforts availed me anything, yet after some time my mind, desirous of health, sought to return to the method by which other disconsolate ones had found consolation, and I set myself to read that little-known book of Boetius in which he consoled himself when a prisoner and an exile. And hearing that Tully had written another work, in which, treating of friendship, he had given words of consolation to Laelius, I set myself to read that also.” He so far recovered from the shock of his loss that in 1292 he married Gemma, daughter of Manetto Donati, a connexion of the celebrated Corso Donati, afterwards Dante’s bitter foe. It is possible that she is the lady mentioned in the Vita Nuova as sitting full of pity at her window and comforting Dante for his sorrow. By this wife he had two sons and two daughters, and although he never mentions her in the Divina Commedia, and although she did not accompany him into exile, there is no reason to suppose that she was other than a good wife, or that the union was otherwise than happy. Certain it is that he spares the memory of Corso in his great poem, and speaks kindly of his kinsmen Piccarda and Forese.

Dante first met Beatrice Portinari at her father Folco's house on May 1, 1274. In his own words, “nine times after my birth the realm of light had returned to the same point when the glorious lady of my thoughts appeared to me. She was known by many as Beatrice, though they didn’t know what to call her. By that time, she had been in this life long enough that the starry sky had shifted slightly toward the east, indicating she appeared to me at the start of her ninth year, while I saw her near the end of my ninth year. On that day, she wore a beautiful noble color, a soft and lovely crimson, elegantly girdled and adorned in a way that suited her delicate age. At that moment, I realized the spirit of life, dwelling deeply in my heart, began to tremble so intensely that every pulse of my body shook with it; and in trembling, it whispered these words, ‘Behold, a God stronger than I, who coming will have dominion over me.’” The Vita Nuova tells the story of his passion from its beginning until a year after the lady’s death (June 9, 1290). He saw Beatrice only once or twice, and she likely knew little of him. She married Simone de’ Bardi. But his love for her only grew stronger because of the distance. The last chapter of the Vita Nuova describes how, after a year, “I had a wonderful vision, where I saw things that led me to say nothing more about this blessed one until I could speak of her more worthily. To this end, I work as hard as I can, as she knows. So if it is His will, through whom all things live, that my life continues for a few more years, I hope to write about her what has never been written about any woman before. After which, may it please Him, the master of grace, that my spirit should depart to behold the glory of its lady, that is, of the blessed Beatrice who now gazes gloriously upon the face of Him who is blessed throughout all ages.” In the Convito, he continues his life story. “When I lost the first joy of my soul (that is, Beatrice), I was so filled with sadness that no comfort helped me. However, after a while, wanting to heal, I sought to return to the methods by which other grieving people had found solace, so I began to read that little-known book by Boethius, in which he consoled himself while imprisoned and exiled. Hearing that Cicero had written another work on friendship, offering words of comfort to Laelius, I read that too.” He managed to recover from the shock of his loss enough that in 1292 he married Gemma, the daughter of Manetto Donati, a relative of the famous Corso Donati, who later became Dante’s fierce enemy. She might be the lady mentioned in the Vita Nuova who, full of pity, sat at her window comforting Dante for his sorrow. With her, he had two sons and two daughters. Even though he never mentions her in the Divina Commedia and she didn’t accompany him into exile, there’s no reason to think she wasn’t a good wife or that their marriage was anything but happy. It’s clear he respects Corso in his great poem and speaks kindly of his relatives Piccarda and Forese.

In 1293 Giano della Bella, a man of old family who had thrown in his lot with the people, induced the commonwealth to adopt the so-called “Ordinances of Justice,” a severely democratic constitution, by which among other things it was enacted that no man of noble family, even though engaged in trade, could hold office as prior. Two years later Giano was banished, but the ordinances remained in force, though the grandi recovered much of their power.

In 1293, Giano della Bella, a man from an old family who sided with the common people, convinced the government to adopt the so-called “Ordinances of Justice,” a very democratic constitution. This established, among other things, that no noble, even if involved in trade, could hold the office of prior. Two years later, Giano was exiled, but the ordinances stayed in place, although the grandi regained much of their power.

Dante now began to take an active part in politics. He was inscribed in the arte of the Medici and Speziali, which made him eligible as one of the six priori to whom the government of the city was entrusted in 1282. Documents still existing in the archives of Florence show that he took part in the deliberations of the several councils of the city in 1295, 1296, 1300 and 1301. The notice in the last year is of some importance. The pope had demanded a contingent of 100 Florentine knights to serve against his enemies, the Colonna family. On the 19th of June we read in the contemporary report of the debate on this question in the Council of a Hundred: “Dantes Alagherius consuluit quod de servitio faciendo Domino Papae nihil fieret.” Other instances of his invariable opposition to Boniface occur. Filelfo says that he served on fourteen embassies, a statement not only unsupported by evidence, but impossible in itself. Filelfo does not mention the only embassy in which we know for certain that Dante was engaged, that to the town of San Gemignano in May 1300. From the 15th of June to the 15th of August 1300 he held the office of prior, which was the source of all the miseries of his life. The spirit of faction had again broken out in Florence. The two rival families were the Cerchi and the Donati,—the first of great wealth but recent origin, the last of ancient ancestry but poor. A quarrel had arisen in Pistoia between the two branches of the Cancellieri,—the Bianchi and Neri, the Whites and the Blacks. The quarrel spread to Florence, the Donati took the side of the Blacks, the Cerchi of the Whites. Pope Boniface was asked to mediate, and sent Cardinal Matteo d’Acquasparta to maintain peace. He arrived just as Dante entered upon his office as prior. The cardinal effected nothing, but Dante and his colleagues banished the heads of the rival parties in different directions to a distance from the capital. The Blacks were sent to Città della Pieve in the Tuscan mountains; the Whites, among whom was Dante’s dearest friend Guido Cavalcanti, to Serrezzano in the unhealthy Maremma. After the expiration of Dante’s office both parties returned, Guido Cavalcanti so ill with fever that he shortly afterwards died. At a meeting held in the church of the Holy Trinity the Whites were denounced as Ghibellines, enemies of the pope. The Blacks sought for vengeance. Their leader, Corso Donati, hastened to Rome, and persuaded Boniface VIII. to send for Charles of Valois, brother of the French king, Philip the Fair, to act as “peacemaker.” The priors sent at the end of September four ambassadors to the pope, one of whom, according to the chronicler Dino, was Dante. There are, however, improbabilities in the story, and the passage quoted in support of it bears marks of later interpolation. He never again saw the towers of his native city. Charles of Valois, after visiting the pope at Anagni, retraced his steps to Florence, entering the city on All Saints’ Day and taking up his abode in the Oltr’ Arno. Corso Donati, who had been banished a second time, returned in force and summoned the Blacks to arms. The prisons were broken open, the podestà driven from the town, the Cerchi confined within their houses, a third of the city was destroyed with fire and sword. By the help of Charles the Blacks were victorious. They appointed Cante de’ Gabrielli of Gubbio as podestà, a man devoted to their interests. More than 600 Whites were condemned to exile and cast as beggars upon the world. On the 27th of January 1302, Dante, with four others of the White party, was charged before the podestà, Cante de’ Gabrielli, with baratteria, or corrupt jobbery and peculation when in office, and, not appearing, condemned to pay a fine of 5000 lire of small florins. If the money was not paid within three days their property was to be destroyed and laid waste; if they did pay the fine they were to be exiled for two years from Tuscany; in any case they were never again to hold office in the 813 republic. The charge in Dante’s case was obviously preposterous, though ingeniously devised; for he was known to be at the time in somewhat straitened circumstances, and had recently been in control of certain public works. But of all sins, that of “barratry” was one of the most hateful to him. No doubt the papal finger may be traced in the affair. On the 10th of March Dante and fourteen others were condemned to be burned alive if they should come into the power of the republic. Similar sentences were passed in September 1311 and October 1315. The sentence was not formally reversed till 1494, under the government of the Medici.

Dante began to actively engage in politics. He was registered in the guild of the Medici and Spezionali, which allowed him to be one of the six priors responsible for the city's government in 1282. Existing documents in the archives of Florence show that he participated in the city's council discussions in 1295, 1296, 1300, and 1301. The information from the last year is significant. The pope had requested 100 Florentine knights to serve against his foes, the Colonna family. On June 19, a contemporary report from the debate in the Council of One Hundred states: “Dantes Alagherius advised that no service be rendered to the Lord Pope.” Other examples of his consistent opposition to Boniface appear as well. Filelfo claims he served on fourteen diplomatic missions, a statement lacking evidence and inherently impossible. Filelfo does not mention the one embassy we know for sure Dante was involved in, which was to the town of San Gemignano in May 1300. From June 15 to August 15, 1300, he held the position of prior, which caused all the troubles in his life. Factionalism had erupted again in Florence. The two rival families were the Cerchi, who were wealthy but new, and the Donati, who were old but impoverished. A conflict had broken out in Pistoia between the two factions of the Cancellieri—the Bianchi (Whites) and the Neri (Blacks). This conflict spread to Florence, with the Donati siding with the Blacks and the Cerchi with the Whites. Pope Boniface was asked to mediate and sent Cardinal Matteo d’Acquasparta to maintain peace. He arrived just as Dante assumed his role as prior. The cardinal accomplished nothing, but Dante and his fellow priors exiled the leaders of the opposing factions to different places away from the city. The Blacks were sent to Città della Pieve in the Tuscan mountains, while the Whites, including Dante’s closest friend Guido Cavalcanti, were sent to Serrezzano in the unhealthy Maremma. After Dante's term ended, both factions returned, with Guido Cavalcanti severely ill with fever, who soon passed away. In a meeting at the church of the Holy Trinity, the Whites were labeled as Ghibellines, enemies of the pope. The Blacks sought revenge. Their leader, Corso Donati, rushed to Rome and convinced Boniface VIII to summon Charles of Valois, the brother of the French king, Philip the Fair, to act as a “peacemaker.” At the end of September, the priors sent four ambassadors to the pope, one of whom, according to the chronicler Dino, was Dante. However, there are doubts about this account, and the quoted passage supporting it shows signs of later editing. He never saw the towers of his hometown again. After meeting the pope in Anagni, Charles of Valois returned to Florence on All Saints’ Day and settled in the Oltr’ Arno. Corso Donati, who had been exiled again, returned with strength and called the Blacks to arms. The prisons were opened, the podestà was expelled from the town, and the Cerchi were confined to their homes, with a third of the city devastated by fire and sword. With Charles’s help, the Blacks emerged victorious. They appointed Cante de’ Gabrielli of Gubbio as podestà, a man loyal to their cause. Over 600 Whites were condemned to exile and left as beggars in the world. On January 27, 1302, Dante, along with four others from the White party, faced accusations before the podestà, Cante de’ Gabrielli, of 'baratteria,' or corrupt practices and embezzlement while in office, and, not appearing, was sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 lire of small florins. If the fine wasn't paid within three days, their property would be destroyed; if they did pay, they would be exiled for two years from Tuscany; in any case, they would never again hold office in the republic. The accusations against Dante were clearly ridiculous, albeit cleverly crafted; he was known to be in somewhat limited financial circumstances and had recently managed certain public projects. However, of all offenses, “barratry” was one of the most loathsome to him. It is clear that the pope's influence can be detected in this matter. On March 10, Dante and fourteen others were condemned to be burned alive if they fell into the republic's hands. Similar sentences were issued in September 1311 and October 1315. The sentence was not formally overturned until 1494, during the Medici rule.

Leonardo Bruni, who accepts the story of the embassy to Rome, states that Dante received the news of his banishment in that city, and at once joined the other exiles at Siena. How he escaped arrest in the papal states is not explained. The exiles met first at Gargonza, a castle between Siena and Arezzo, and then at Arezzo itself. They joined themselves to the Ghibellines, to which party the podestà Uguccione della Faggiuola belonged. The Ghibellines, however, were divided amongst themselves, and the more strict Ghibellines were not disposed to favour the cause of the White Guelphs. On the 8th of June 1302, however, a meeting was held at San Godenzo, a place in the Florentine territory, Dante’s presence at which is proved by documentary evidence, and an alliance was there made with the powerful Ghibelline clan of the Ubaldini. The exiles remained at Arezzo till the summer of 1304. In September 1303 the fleur-de-lis had entered Anagni, and Christ had a second time been made prisoner in the person of his vicar. At the instigation of Philip the Fair, William of Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna had entered the papal palace at Anagni, and had insulted and, it is said, even beaten the aged pontiff under his own roof. Boniface did not survive the insult long, but died in the following month. He was succeeded by Benedict XI., and in March the cardinal da Prato came to Florence, sent by the new pope to make peace. The people received him with enthusiasm; ambassadors came to him from the Whites; and he did his best to reconcile the two parties. But the Blacks resisted all his efforts. He shook the dust from off his feet, and departed, leaving the city under an interdict. Foiled by the calumnies and machinations of the one party, the cardinal gave his countenance to the other. It happened that Corso Donati and the heads of the Black party were absent at Pistoia. Da Prato advised the Whites to attack Florence, deprived of its heads and impaired by a recent fire. An army was collected of 16,000 foot and 9000 horse. Communications were opened with the Ghibellines of Bologna and Romagna, and a futile attempt was made to enter Florence from Lastra, the failure of which further disorganized the party. Dante had, however, already separated from the “ill-conditioned and foolish company” of common party-politicians, who rejected his counsels of wisdom, and had learnt that he must henceforth form a party by himself. In 1303 he had left Arezzo and gone to Forli in Romagna, of which city Scarpetta degli Ordelaffi was lord. To him, according to Flavius Blondus the historian (d. before 1484), a native of the place, Dante acted for a time as secretary.

Leonardo Bruni, who acknowledges the account of the embassy to Rome, claims that Dante found out about his banishment in that city and immediately joined the other exiles in Siena. There's no explanation for how he avoided arrest in the papal states. The exiles initially gathered at Gargonza, a castle between Siena and Arezzo, and then in Arezzo itself. They aligned with the Ghibellines, to which the podestà Uguccione della Faggiuola belonged. However, the Ghibellines were divided among themselves, and the more hardline Ghibellines were not inclined to support the cause of the White Guelphs. On June 8, 1302, a meeting took place at San Godenzo, a location in the Florentine territory, where Dante's presence is confirmed by documentary evidence, and an alliance was formed with the influential Ghibelline family of the Ubaldini. The exiles remained in Arezzo until the summer of 1304. In September 1303, the fleur-de-lis had entered Anagni, and Christ had, for the second time, been captured in the person of his representative. At the urging of Philip the Fair, William of Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna invaded the papal palace in Anagni, ultimately insulting and reportedly even beating the elderly pontiff within his own home. Boniface didn't live long after that humiliation and died the following month. He was succeeded by Benedict XI., and in March, Cardinal da Prato came to Florence, sent by the new pope to negotiate peace. The people welcomed him enthusiastically; ambassadors from the Whites came to see him, and he tried his best to reconcile the two factions. However, the Blacks resisted all his efforts. He shook the dust off his feet and left, leaving the city under an interdict. Thwarted by the slanders and schemes of one side, the cardinal supported the other. Meanwhile, Corso Donati and the leaders of the Black party were away in Pistoia. Da Prato suggested that the Whites attack Florence, which was weakened by a recent fire and lacked its leaders. An army of 16,000 foot soldiers and 9,000 cavalry was assembled. Communications were established with the Ghibellines of Bologna and Romagna, and an unsuccessful attempt was made to enter Florence from Lastra, which further disorganized the faction. However, Dante had already distanced himself from the “ill-conditioned and foolish company” of ordinary party politicians who disregarded his wise advice, realizing that he needed to create a faction of his own. In 1303, he left Arezzo for Forli in Romagna, where Scarpetta degli Ordelaffi was the lord. According to the historian Flavius Blondus (who died before 1484) and a native of the city, Dante served for a time as his secretary.

From Forli Dante probably went to Bartolommeo della Scala, lord of Verona, where the country of the great Lombard gave him his first refuge and his first hospitable reception. Can Grande, to whom he afterwards dedicated the Paradiso, Dante’s Ghibellinism. was then a boy. Bartolommeo died in 1304, and it is possible that Dante may have remained in Verona till his death. We must consider, if we would understand the real nature of Dante’s Ghibellinism, that he had been born and bred a Guelph; but he saw that the conditions of the time were altered, and that other dangers menaced the welfare of his country. There was no fear now that Florence, Siena, Pisa, Arezzo should be razed to the ground in order that the castle of the lord might overlook the humble cottages of his contented subjects; but there was danger lest Italy should be torn in sunder by its own jealousies and passions, and lest the fair domain bounded by the sea and the Alps should never properly assert the force of its individuality, and should present a contemptible contrast to a united France and a confederated Germany. Sick with petty quarrels and dissensions, Dante strained his eyes towards the hills for the appearance of a universal monarch, raised above the jars of faction and the spur of ambition, under whom each country, each city, each man, might, under the institutions best suited to it, lead the life and do the work for which it was best fitted. United in spiritual harmony with the vicar of Christ, he should show for the first time to the world an example of a government where the strongest force and the highest wisdom were interpenetrated by all that God had given to the world of piety and justice. In this sense and in no other was Dante a Ghibelline. The vision was never realized—the hope was never fulfilled. Not till 500 years later did Italy become united and the “greyhound of deliverance” chase from city to city the wolf of cupidity. But is it possible to say that the dream did not work its own realization, or to deny that the high ideal of the poet, after inspiring a few minds as lofty as his own, has become embodied in the constitution of a state which acknowledges no stronger bond of union than a common worship of the exile’s indignant and impassioned verse?

From Forli, Dante likely traveled to Bartolommeo della Scala, lord of Verona, where the region of the great Lombard offered him his first safe haven and warm welcome. Can Grande, whom he later dedicated the Paradiso to, Dante's Ghibelline beliefs. was just a boy at that time. Bartolommeo passed away in 1304, and it's possible that Dante stayed in Verona until his death. To truly understand the essence of Dante’s Ghibellinism, we must remember that he was born and raised a Guelph; however, he recognized that the circumstances had changed, and that new threats endangered his country's well-being. There was no longer any concern that Florence, Siena, Pisa, or Arezzo would be destroyed so that the lord's castle could tower over the humble homes of his satisfied subjects. Instead, there was a risk that Italy would be torn apart by its own jealousies and passions, preventing the beautiful land bordered by the sea and the Alps from fully asserting its individuality, and leaving it a pitiful contrast to a united France and a federated Germany. Exhausted by petty conflicts and disputes, Dante looked towards the hills, hoping for the arrival of a universal monarch, above the noise of factions and ambition, under whom each region, each city, and each person could lead the life and do the work suited to them, under the institutions that best served them. United in spiritual harmony with the vicar of Christ, this leader would demonstrate for the first time to the world a model of governance where the greatest strength and the highest wisdom were combined with everything that God had provided in terms of piety and justice. In this context, and in no other, was Dante a Ghibelline. The vision was never realized—the hope was never fulfilled. It wasn't until 500 years later that Italy became unified and the “greyhound of deliverance” chased the wolf of greed from city to city. But can we truly say that the dream didn’t create its own reality, or deny that the poet’s lofty ideal, after inspiring a few minds as elevated as his, has materialized in the constitution of a state that recognizes no stronger bond of unity than a shared reverence for the exile's fierce and passionate verse?

It is very difficult to determine with exactness the order and the place of Dante’s wanderings. Many cities and castles in Italy have claimed the honour of giving him shelter, or of being for a time the home of his inspired muse. He Wanderings. certainly spent some time with Count Guido Salvatico in the Casentino near the sources of the Arno, probably in the castle of Porciano, and with Uguccione in the castle of Faggiuola in the mountains of Urbino. After this he is said to have visited the university of Bologna; and in August 1306 we find him at Padua. Cardinal Napoleon Orsini, the legate of the French pope Clement V., had put Bologna under a ban, dissolved the university and driven the professors to the northern city. In May or June 1307 the same cardinal collected the Whites at Arezzo and tried to induce the Florentines to recall them. The name of Dante is found attached to a document signed by the Whites in the church of St Gaudenzio in the Mugello. This enterprise came to nothing. Dante retired to the castle of Moroello Malespina in the Lunigiana, where the marble ridges of the mountains of Carrara descend in precipitous slopes to the Gulf of Spezzia. From this time till the arrival of the emperor Henry VII. in Italy, October 1310, all is uncertain. His old enemy Corso Donati had at last allied himself with Uguccione della Faggiuola, the leader of the Ghibellines. Dante thought it possible that this might lead to his return. But in 1308 Corso was declared a traitor, attacked in his house, put to flight and killed. Dante lost his last hope. He left Tuscany, and went to Can Grande della Scala at Verona. From this place it is thought that he visited the university of Paris (1309), studied in the rue du Fouarre and went on into the Low Countries. That he ever crossed the Channel or went to Oxford, or himself saw where the heart of Henry, son of Richard, earl of Cornwall, murdered by his cousin Guy of Montfort in 1271, was “still venerated on the Thames,” may safely be disbelieved. The only evidence for it is in the Commentary of John of Serravalle, bishop of Fermo, who lived a century later, had no special opportunity of knowing, and was writing for the benefit of two English bishops. The election in 1308 of Henry of Luxemburg as emperor stirred again his hopes of a deliverer. At the end of 1310, in a letter to the princes and people of Italy, he proclaimed the coming of the saviour; at Milan he did personal homage to his sovereign. The Florentines made every preparation to resist the emperor. Dante wrote from the Casentino a letter dated the 31st of March 1311, in which he rebuked them for their stubbornness and obstinacy. Henry still lingered in Lombardy at the siege of Cremona, when Dante, on the 16th of April 1311, in a celebrated epistle, upbraided his delay, argued that the crown of Italy was to be won on the Arno rather than on the Po, and urged the tarrying emperor to hew the rebellious Florentines like Agag in pieces before the Lord. Henry was as deaf to this exhortation as the Florentines themselves. After reducing Lombardy he passed from Genoa to Pisa, and on the 29th of June 1312 was crowned by some cardinals in the church of St John Lateran at Rome; the Vatican being in the hands of his adversary King Robert of Naples. Then at length he moved towards 814 Tuscany by way of Umbria. Leaving Cortona and Arezzo, he reached Florence on the 19th of September. He did not dare to attack it, but returned in November to Pisa. In the summer of the following year he prepared to invade the kingdom of Naples; but in the neighbourhood of Siena he caught a fever and died at the monastery of Buonconvento, on the 24th of August 1313. He lies in the Campo Santo of Pisa; and the hopes of Dante and his party were buried in his grave.

It’s really tough to pin down exactly where Dante wandered and in what order. Many cities and castles in Italy have claimed the honor of sheltering him or being his temporary home. He definitely spent some time with Count Guido Salvatico in the Casentino near the sources of the Arno, probably at the castle of Porciano, and with Uguccione in the castle of Faggiuola in the mountains of Urbino. After that, he reportedly visited the university of Bologna, and in August 1306, we find him in Padua. Cardinal Napoleon Orsini, the envoy of the French pope Clement V., had placed Bologna under a ban, dissolved the university, and forced the professors to flee to the northern city. In May or June 1307, the same cardinal gathered the Whites at Arezzo and tried to persuade the Florentines to recall them. The name Dante appears on a document signed by the Whites in the church of St. Gaudenzio in the Mugello. This venture didn’t lead to anything. Dante then went to the castle of Moroello Malespina in Lunigiana, where the marble ridges of the Carrara mountains drop steeply to the Gulf of Spezzia. From this point until the arrival of Emperor Henry VII in Italy in October 1310, everything is uncertain. His old enemy Corso Donati had finally allied himself with Uguccione della Faggiuola, the leader of the Ghibellines. Dante thought this could lead to his return. But in 1308, Corso was declared a traitor, attacked in his home, forced to flee, and killed. Dante lost his last hope. He left Tuscany and went to Can Grande della Scala in Verona. From there, it’s believed he visited the university of Paris (1309), studied on rue du Fouarre, and then traveled to the Low Countries. It’s unlikely that he ever crossed the Channel or went to Oxford or saw the tomb of Henry, son of Richard, earl of Cornwall, who was murdered by his cousin Guy of Montfort in 1271, which was "still venerated on the Thames." The only evidence for this is found in the Commentary by John of Serravalle, bishop of Fermo, who lived a century later, had no special way of knowing, and wrote for the benefit of two English bishops. The election of Henry of Luxemburg as emperor in 1308 reignited his hopes for a savior. At the end of 1310, in a letter to the princes and people of Italy, he announced the coming of the savior; in Milan, he paid personal homage to his sovereign. The Florentines prepared to resist the emperor. Dante wrote from the Casentino a letter dated March 31, 1311, scolding them for their stubbornness and obstinacy. Henry was still lingering in Lombardy during the siege of Cremona when, on April 16, 1311, Dante, in a famous letter, criticized his delay, argued that the crown of Italy needed to be won on the Arno rather than on the Po, and urged the indecisive emperor to cut the rebellious Florentines to pieces like Agag before the Lord. Henry was as unresponsive to this suggestion as the Florentines were. After conquering Lombardy, he moved from Genoa to Pisa, and on June 29, 1312, he was crowned by some cardinals in the church of St. John Lateran in Rome, as the Vatican was controlled by his enemy, King Robert of Naples. Finally, he headed toward Tuscany via Umbria. After passing Cortona and Arezzo, he reached Florence on September 19. He didn’t dare to attack it but returned to Pisa in November. In the summer of the following year, he prepared to invade the kingdom of Naples; but near Siena, he caught a fever and died at the monastery of Buonconvento on August 24, 1313. He was buried in the Campo Santo of Pisa, and Dante's hopes and those of his party were laid to rest with him.

After the death of the emperor Henry (Bruni tells us) Dante passed the rest of his life as an exile, sojourning in various places throughout Lombardy, Tuscany and the Romagna, under the protection of various lords, until at length Old age and death. he retired to Ravenna, where he ended his life. Very little can be added to this meagre story. There is reason for supposing that he stayed at Gubbio with Bosone dei Rafaelli, and tradition assigns him a cell in the monastery of Sta Croce di Fonte Avellana in the same district, situated on the slopes of Catria, one of the highest peaks of the Apennines in that region. After the death of the French pope, Clement V., he addressed a letter, dated the 14th of July 1314, to the cardinals in conclave, urging them to elect an Italian pope. About this time he came to Lucca, then lately conquered by his friend Uguccione. Here he completed the last cantos of the Purgatory, which he dedicated to Uguccione, and here he must have become acquainted with Gentucca, whose name had been whispered to him by her countryman on the slopes of the Mountain of Purification (Purg. xxiv. 37). That the intimacy between the “world-worn” poet and the young married lady (who is thought to be identifiable with Gentucca Morla, wife of one Cosciorino Fondora) was other than blameless, is quite incredible. In August 1315 was fought the battle of Monte Catini, a day of humiliation and mourning for the Guelphs. Uguccione made but little use of his victory; and the Florentines marked their vengeance on his adviser by condemning Dante yet once again to death if he ever should come into their power. In the beginning of the following year Uguccione lost both his cities of Pisa and Lucca. At this time Dante was offered an opportunity of returning to Florence. The conditions given to the exiles were that they should pay a fine and walk in the dress of humiliation to the church of St John, and there do penance for their offences. Dante refused to tolerate this shame; and the letter is still extant in which he declines to enter Florence except with honour, secure that the means of life will not fail him, and that in any corner of the world he will be able to gaze at the sun and the stars, and meditate on the sweetest truths of philosophy. He preferred to take refuge with his most illustrious protector Can Grande della Scala of Verona, then a young man of twenty-five, rich, liberal and the favoured head of the Ghibelline party. His name has been immortalized by an eloquent panegyric in the seventeenth canto of the Paradiso. Whilst on a visit at the court of Verona he maintained, on the 20th of January 1320, the philosophical thesis De aqua et terra, on the levels of land and water, which is included in his minor works. The last three years of his life were spent at Ravenna, under the protection of Guido da Polenta. In his service Dante undertook an embassy to the Venetians. He failed in the object of his mission, and, returning disheartened and broken in spirit through the unhealthy lagoons, caught a fever and died in Ravenna on the 14th of September 1321. His bones still repose there. His doom of exile has been reversed by the union of Italy, which has made the city of his birth and the various cities of his wanderings component members of a common country. His son Piero, who wrote a commentary on the Divina Commedia, settled as a lawyer in Verona, and died in 1364. His daughter Beatrice lived as a nun in Ravenna, dying at some time between 1350 (when Boccaccio brought her a present of ten gold crowns from a Florentine gild) and 1370. His direct line became extinct in 1509.

After the death of Emperor Henry, Dante spent the rest of his life in exile, living in various places throughout Lombardy, Tuscany, and Romagna, under the protection of different lords, until he finally retired to Ravenna, where he passed away. There's not much more to this sparse story. It’s believed that he stayed in Gubbio with Bosone dei Rafaelli, and tradition says he had a room in the monastery of Sta Croce di Fonte Avellana in the same area, located on the slopes of Catria, one of the highest peaks in the Apennines. After the death of the French Pope, Clement V, he wrote a letter on July 14, 1314, to the cardinals in conclave, urging them to elect an Italian pope. Around this time, he arrived in Lucca, which had recently been conquered by his friend Uguccione. Here, he finished the last cantos of the Purgatory, dedicating it to Uguccione, and it’s likely he met Gentucca, whose name had been mentioned to him by her countryman on the slopes of the Mountain of Purification. The idea that the “world-worn” poet and the young married woman (thought to be Gentucca Morla, wife of Cosciorino Fondora) had anything other than a blameless relationship is hard to believe. In August 1315, the battle of Monte Catini was fought, a day of shame and sorrow for the Guelphs. Uguccione made little use of his victory, and the Florentines took their revenge on his adviser by condemning Dante once again to death if he ever fell into their hands. At the start of the following year, Uguccione lost both Pisa and Lucca. At this point, Dante was given a chance to return to Florence. The conditions for the exiles were that they would have to pay a fine and walk in shameful clothing to the church of St John, where they would do penance for their offenses. Dante refused to accept this humiliation, and the letter where he declines to enter Florence unless with honor still exists. He was sure that he could make a living and that he could find a place anywhere in the world to see the sun and stars and reflect on the sweetest truths of philosophy. He chose to seek refuge with his most prominent protector, Can Grande della Scala of Verona, a wealthy, generous young man of twenty-five, who was the favored leader of the Ghibelline party. His name is immortalized in an eloquent praise in the seventeenth canto of the Paradiso. While visiting the court in Verona, he defended the philosophical thesis De aqua et terra, on the levels of land and water, which is included in his minor works, on January 20, 1320. The last three years of his life were spent in Ravenna, under the protection of Guido da Polenta. While in his service, Dante was sent on an embassy to the Venetians. He failed in his mission and returned, disheartened and despondent, through the unhealthy lagoons, caught a fever, and died in Ravenna on September 14, 1321. His remains still rest there. His exile has been undone by the unification of Italy, which has brought together his birthplace and the various cities he wandered through into one common country. His son Piero, who wrote a commentary on the Divina Commedia, became a lawyer in Verona and died in 1364. His daughter Beatrice lived as a nun in Ravenna and died sometime between 1350 (when Boccaccio gave her ten gold crowns from a Florentine guild) and 1370. His direct line died out in 1509.

Dante’s Works.—Of Dante’s works, that by which he is known to all the educated world, and in virtue of which he holds his place as one of the half-dozen greatest writers of all time, is of course the Commedia. (The epithet divina, Divina Commedia. it may be noted, was not given to the poem by its author, nor does it appear on a title-page until 1555, in the edition of Ludovico Dolce, printed by Giolito; though it is applied to the poet himself as early as 1512.) The poem is absolutely unique in literature; it may safely be said that at no other epoch of the world’s history could such a work have been produced. Dante was steeped in all the learning, which in its way was considerable, of his time; he had read the Summa Theologica of Aquinas, the Trésor of his master Brunetto, and other encyclopaedic works available in that age; he was familiar with all that was then known of the Latin classical and post-classical authors. Further, he was a deep and original political thinker, who had himself borne a prominent part in practical politics. He was born into a generation in which almost every man of education habitually wrote verse, as indeed their predecessors had been doing for the last fifty years. Vernacular poetry had come late into Italy, and had hitherto, save for a few didactic or devotional treatises hitched into rough rhyme, been exclusively lyric in form. Amatory at first, later, chiefly in the hands of Guittone of Arezzo and Guido Cavalcanti, taking an ethical and metaphysical tone, it had never fully shaken off the Provençal influence under which it had started, and of which Dante himself shows considerable traces.

Dante’s Works.—Dante’s most recognized work, which has solidified his position as one of the greatest writers of all time, is the Commedia. (It’s worth noting that the term divina was not assigned to the poem by Dante himself, nor does it appear on a title page until 1555 in the edition by Ludovico Dolce, printed by Giolito; however, it was used to describe the poet himself as early as 1512.) This poem is truly unique in literature; it’s safe to say that such a work could not have been created in any other period of history. Dante was deeply immersed in the substantial learning of his time; he had studied Aquinas's Summa Theologica, the Trésor by his master Brunetto, and other comprehensive works available then; he was well-acquainted with all that was known of Latin classical and post-classical authors. Additionally, he was a profound and original political thinker who actively participated in practical politics. He was born into a era where nearly every educated person regularly wrote poetry, just as their predecessors had done for the previous fifty years. Vernacular poetry arrived late in Italy and, aside from a few didactic or devotional pieces thrown into rough rhyme, had been exclusively lyrical. Initially amorous, and later primarily shaped by Guittone of Arezzo and Guido Cavalcanti to reflect ethical and metaphysical themes, it had never completely shaken off the Provençal influence that shaped its beginnings, which Dante himself still exhibits in significant ways.

The age also was unique, though the two great events which made the 15th century a turning-point in the world’s history—the invention of printing and the discovery of the new world (to which might perhaps be added the intrusion of Islam into Europe)—were still far in the future. But the age was essentially one of great men; of free thought and free speech; of brilliant and daring action, whether for good or evil. It is easy to understand how Dante’s bitterest scorn is reserved for those “sorry souls who lived without infamy and without renown, displeasing to God and to His enemies.”

The era was distinct, even though the two major events that would make the 15th century a turning point in world history—the invention of printing and the discovery of the New World (and perhaps the spread of Islam into Europe)—were still ahead. Nonetheless, this time was fundamentally characterized by remarkable individuals; it was a period of free thought and speech, filled with bold and innovative actions, whether they were positive or negative. It's easy to see why Dante's harshest criticism was directed at those “pitiful souls who lived without infamy and without fame, disappointing both God and His adversaries.”

The time was thus propitious for the production of a great imaginative work, and the man was ready who should produce it. It called for a prophet, and the prophet said, “Here am I.” “Dante,” says an acute writer, “is not, as Homer is, the father of poetry springing in the freshness and simplicity of childhood out of the arms of mother earth; he is rather, like Noah, the father of a second poetical world, to whom he pours forth his prophetic song fraught with the wisdom and the experience of the old world.” Thus the Commedia, though often classed for want of a better description among epic poems, is totally different in method and construction from all other poems of that kind. Its “hero” is the narrator himself; the incidents do not modify the course of the story; the place of episodes is taken by theological or metaphysical disquisitions; the world through which the poet takes his readers is peopled, not with characters of heroic story, but with men and women known personally or by repute to him and those for whom he wrote. Its aim is not to delight, but to reprove, to rebuke, to exhort; to form men’s characters by teaching them what courses of life will meet with reward, what with penalty, hereafter; “to put into verse,” as the poet says, “things difficult to think.” For such new matter a new vehicle was needed. We have Bembo’s authority for believing that the terza rima, surpassed, if at all, only by the ancient hexameter, as a measure equally adaptable to sustained narrative, to debate, to fierce invective, to clear-cut picture and to trenchant epigram, was first employed by Dante.

The time was right for creating an extraordinary imaginative work, and the person ready to create it was present. It needed a visionary, and the visionary said, “Here I am.” “Dante,” says an insightful writer, “is not, like Homer, the father of poetry emerging with the freshness and simplicity of childhood from the arms of mother earth; he is more like Noah, the father of a second poetic world, from which he shares his prophetic song filled with the wisdom and experiences of the old world.” Thus, the Commedia, while often categorized due to a lack of better terms among epic poems, is completely different in approach and structure from all other poems of that genre. Its “hero” is the narrator himself; the events don’t change the direction of the story; the role of episodes is taken by theological or metaphysical discussions; the world the poet guides his readers through is populated, not with characters from heroic tales, but with men and women he knows personally or by reputation, and those for whom he wrote. Its purpose is not to entertain, but to admonish, to challenge, to encourage; to shape men’s characters by teaching them which paths in life will be rewarded and which will be punished in the future; “to put into verse,” as the poet says, “things difficult to think.” For such new content, a new form was necessary. We have Bembo’s authority to believe that the terza rima, surpassed, if at all, only by the ancient hexameter, as a structure suitable for continuous narrative, debate, fierce invective, vivid imagery, and sharp epigram, was first used by Dante.

The action of the Commedia opens in the early morning of the Thursday before Easter, in the year 1300. The poet finds himself lost in a forest, escaping from which he has his way barred by a wolf, a lion and a leopard. All this, like the rest of the poem, is highly symbolical. This branch of the subject is too vast to be entered on at any length here; but so far as this passage is concerned it may be said that it seems to indicate that at this period of his life, about the age of thirty-five, Dante went through some experience akin to what is now called “conversion.” Having led up till then the ordinary life of a cultivated Florentine of good family; taking his part in public affairs, military and civil, as an hereditary member of the predominant Guelph party; dallying in prose which with all its beauty and passion is full of the conceits familiar to the 13th century, and in verse which save for the excellence of its execution differs in no way from that of his 815 predecessors, with the memory of his lost love; studying more seriously, perhaps, than most of his associates; possibly travelling a little,—gradually or suddenly he became convinced that all was not well with him, and that not by leading, however blamelessly, the “active” life could he save his soul. The strong vein of mysticism, found in so many of the deepest thinkers of that age, and conspicuous in Dante’s mind, no doubt played its part. His efforts to free himself from the “forest” of worldly cares were impeded by the temptations of the world—cupidity (including ambition), the pride of life and the lusts of the flesh, symbolized by the three beasts. But a helper is at hand. Virgil appears and explains that he has a commission from three ladies on high to guide him. The ladies are the Blessed Virgin, St Lucy (whom for some reason never yet explained Dante seems to have regarded as in a special sense his protector) and Beatrice. In Virgil we are apparently intended to see the symbol of what Dante calls philosophy, what we should rather call natural religion; Beatrice standing for theology, or rather revealed religion. Under Virgil’s escort Dante is led through the two lower realms of the next world, Hell and Purgatory; meeting on the way with many persons illustrious or notorious in recent or remoter times, as well as many well enough known then in Tuscany and the neighbouring states; but who, without the immortality, often unenviable, that the poet has conferred on them, would long ago have been forgotten. Popes, kings, emperors, poets and warriors, Florentine citizens of all degrees, are there found; some doomed to hopeless punishment, others expiating their offences in milder torments, and looking forward to deliverance in due time. It is remarkable to notice how rarely, if ever, Dante allows political sympathy or antagonism to influence him in his distribution of judgment. Hell is conceived as a vast conical hollow, reaching to the centre of the earth. It has three great divisions, corresponding to Aristotle’s three classes of vices, incontinence, brutishness and malice. The first are outside the walls of the city of Dis; the second, among whom are included unbelievers, tyrants, suicides, unnatural offenders, usurers, are within; the first apparently on the same level as those without, the rest separated from them by a steep descent of broken rocks. (It should be said that many Dante scholars hold that Aristotle’s “brutishness” has no place in Dante’s scheme; but the symmetry of the arrangement, the special reference made to that division, and certain expressions used elsewhere by Dante, seem to make it probable that he would here, as in most other cases, have followed his master in philosophy.) The sinners by malice, which includes all forms of fraud or treachery, are divided from the last by a yet more formidable barrier. They lie at the bottom of a pit, the depth of which is not stated, with vertical sides, and accessible only by supernatural means; a monster named Geryon bearing the poets down on his back. The torments here are of a more terrible, often of a loathsome character. Ignominy is added to pain, and the nature of Dante’s demeanour towards the sinners changes from pity to hatred. At the very bottom of the pit is Lucifer, immovably fixed in ice; climbing down his limbs they reach the centre of the earth, whence a cranny conducts them back to the surface, at the foot of the purgatorial mountain, which they reach as Easter Day is dawning. Before the actual Purgatory is attained they have to climb for the latter half of the day and rest at night. The occupants of this outer region are those who have delayed repentance till death was upon them. They include many of the most famous men of the last thirty years. In the morning the gate is opened, and Purgatory proper is entered. This is divided into seven terraces, corresponding to the seven deadly sins, which encircle the mountain and have to be reached by a series of steep climbs, compared by Dante in one instance to the path from Florence to Samminiato. The penalties are not degrading, but rather tests of patience or endurance; and in several cases Dante has to bear a share in them as he passes. On the summit is the Earthly Paradise. Here Beatrice appears, in a mystical pageant; Virgil departs, leaving Dante in her charge. By her he is led through the various spheres of which, according to both the astronomy and the theology of the time, Heaven is composed, to the supreme Heaven, or Empyrean, the seat of the Godhead. For one moment there is granted him the intuitive vision of the Deity, and the comprehension of all mysteries, which is the ultimate goal of mystical theology; his will is wholly blended with that of God, and the poem ends.

The action of the Commedia begins early on the Thursday before Easter in 1300. The poet finds himself lost in a forest, and his escape is blocked by a wolf, a lion, and a leopard. This scene, like the rest of the poem, is highly symbolic. This aspect of the topic is too extensive to discuss in detail here; however, regarding this passage, it indicates that at this time in his life, around the age of thirty-five, Dante underwent an experience similar to what is now referred to as “conversion.” Until then, he lived the typical life of a cultivated Florentine from a good family, participating in public affairs—both military and civil—as a hereditary member of the dominant Guelph party; indulging in prose that, despite its beauty and passion, is filled with the clichés typical of the 13th century, and in verse that, aside from its skillful execution, is no different from that of his 815 predecessors. With the memory of his lost love, studying perhaps more seriously than most of his peers, and possibly traveling a little—he gradually or suddenly became convinced that all was not well with him and that he could not save his soul merely by living an “active” life, no matter how blamelessly. The strong element of mysticism found in many of the deepest thinkers of that time, which is also evident in Dante’s thoughts, likely played a role. His attempts to escape the “forest” of worldly concerns were hindered by the temptations of the world—greed (including ambition), the pride of life, and the desires of the flesh, symbolized by the three beasts. But help is on the way. Virgil appears and explains that he has been sent on a mission from three ladies in heaven to guide him. The ladies are the Blessed Virgin, St. Lucy (whom, for some reason never fully explained, Dante seems to see as especially his protector), and Beatrice. In Virgil, we are supposed to see the symbol of what Dante refers to as philosophy, which we would call natural religion; Beatrice represents theology, or rather revealed religion. Under Virgil’s guidance, Dante is led through the two lower realms of the afterlife, Hell and Purgatory, encountering various notable figures from both recent and distant times, along with many individuals well known in Tuscany and neighboring states at the time; otherwise, without the often unenviable immortality bestowed upon them by the poet, they would have long been forgotten. Popes, kings, emperors, poets, warriors, and Florentine citizens of all ranks can be found there; some are condemned to hopeless punishment, while others are atoning for their offenses in less severe torments, looking forward to being freed in due time. It’s noteworthy how rarely, if ever, Dante lets his political sympathies or antagonisms influence his judgments. Hell is conceived as a vast conical pit extending to the center of the earth. It has three major sections corresponding to Aristotle’s three categories of vices: incontinence, bestiality, and malice. The first group is outside the walls of the city of Dis; the second group, which includes nonbelievers, tyrants, suicides, unnatural offenders, and usurers, is within; the first group seemingly exists on the same level as those outside, while the others are separated from them by a steep descent of broken rocks. (It should be noted that many Dante scholars argue that Aristotle's “bestiality” has no place in Dante’s framework; however, the symmetry of the arrangement, the specific reference to that division, and certain expressions used by Dante elsewhere suggest that he would, as in most other cases, have followed his philosophical master.) The malicious sinners, which includes all forms of deceit and betrayal, are separated from the last group by an even more daunting barrier. They are located at the bottom of a pit, the depth of which is unspecified, with vertical sides, and can only be reached through supernatural means; a monster named Geryon carries the poets down on his back. The torments experienced here are often more horrific and repulsive. Humiliation is added to pain, and Dante's attitude towards the sinners shifts from pity to hatred. At the very bottom of the pit is Lucifer, immovably trapped in ice; by climbing down his limbs, they reach the center of the earth, where a crevice leads them back to the surface at the foot of the purgatorial mountain, which they reach just as Easter Day begins to dawn. Before entering Purgatory itself, they must climb for the latter half of the day and rest at night. The occupants of this outer region are those who delayed their repentance until death was imminent. They include many of the most notable individuals from the last thirty years. In the morning, the gate is opened, allowing them to enter Purgatory proper. This realm is divided into seven terraces, corresponding to the seven deadly sins, which wrap around the mountain and must be accessed by a series of steep climbs, which Dante compares in one instance to the path from Florence to Samminiato. The penalties are not degrading but instead serve as tests of patience or endurance; in several instances, Dante has to share in these experiences as he passes. At the summit is the Earthly Paradise. Here, Beatrice appears in a mystical display; Virgil departs, leaving Dante in her care. She guides him through the various spheres of Heaven, as understood by the astronomy and theology of the time, leading him to the highest Heaven, or Empyrean, the throne of God. For a moment, he is granted an intuitive vision of the Deity and the understanding of all mysteries, which is the ultimate goal of mystical theology; his will becomes completely unified with that of God, and the poem concludes.

The Convito, or Banquet, also called Convivio (Bembo uses the first form, Trissino the other), is the work of Dante’s manhood, as the Vita Nuova is the work of his youth. It consists, in the form in which it has come down to us, of an Convito. introduction and three treatises, each forming an elaborate commentary in a long canzone. It was intended, if completed, to have comprised commentaries on eleven more canzoni, making fourteen in all, and in this shape would have formed a tesoro or handbook of universal knowledge, such as Brunetto Latini and others have left to us. It is perhaps the least well known of Dante’s Italian works, but crabbed and unattractive as it is in many parts, it is well worth reading, and contains many passages of great beauty and elevation. Indeed a knowledge of it is quite indispensable to the full understanding of the Divina Commedia and the De Monarchia. The time of its composition is uncertain. As it stands it has very much the look of being the contents of note-books partially arranged. Dante mentions princes as living who died in 1309; he does not mention Henry VII. as emperor, who succeeded in 1310. There are some passages which seem to have been inserted at a later date. The canzoni upon which the commentary is written were probably composed between 1292 and 1300, when he was seeking in philosophy consolation for the loss of Beatrice. The Convito was first printed in Florence by Buonaccorsi in 1490. It has never been adequately edited.

The Convito, or Banquet, also known as Convivio (Bembo uses the first version, Trissino the other), is a work from Dante’s middle years, while the Vita Nuova comes from his youth. As we have it now, it consists of an Convocation. introduction and three essays, each providing a detailed commentary on a long canzone. It was meant to include commentaries on eleven more canzoni, totaling fourteen, and in that form, it would have served as a tesoro or handbook of universal knowledge, similar to those left by Brunetto Latini and others. It might be the least known of Dante’s works in Italian, but despite being difficult and uninviting in places, it's definitely worth reading and has many passages of great beauty and depth. In fact, understanding it is essential for fully grasping the Divina Commedia and the De Monarchia. The exact time it was written is uncertain. It looks like a collection of notes that were partially organized. Dante refers to princes who died in 1309, but he doesn't mention Henry VII as emperor, who took over in 1310. There are passages that seem to have been added later. The canzoni that the commentary is based on were likely written between 1292 and 1300, during which he sought philosophical solace for the loss of Beatrice. The Convito was first printed in Florence by Buonaccorsi in 1490 and has never been properly edited.

The Vita Nuova (Young Life or New Life, for both significations seem to be intended) contains the history of his love for Beatrice. He describes how he met Beatrice as a child, himself a child, how he often sought her glance, how she once Vita Nuova. greeted him in the street, how he feigned a false love to hide his true love, how he fell ill and saw in a dream the death and transfiguration of his beloved, how she died, and how his health failed from sorrow, how the tender compassion of another lady nearly won his heart from its first affection, how Beatrice appeared to him in a vision and reclaimed his heart, and how at last he saw a vision which induced him to devote himself to study that he might be more fit to glorify her who gazes on the face of God for ever. This simple story is interspersed with sonnets, ballads and canzoni, arranged with a remarkable symmetry, to which Professor Charles Eliot Norton was the first to draw attention, chiefly written at the time to emphasize some mood of his changing passion. After each of these, in nearly every case, follows an explanation in prose, which is intended to make the thought and argument intelligible to those to whom the language of poetry was not familiar. The whole has a somewhat artificial air, in spite of its undoubted beauty; showing that Dante was still under the influence of the Dugentisti, many of whose conceits he reproduces. The book was probably completed by 1300. It was first printed by Sermartelli in Florence, 1576.

The Vita Nuova (Young Life or New Life, as both meanings are intended) tells the story of his love for Beatrice. He recounts how he met Beatrice as a child, how he often sought her gaze, how she once greeted him in the street, how he pretended to have a false love to hide his true feelings, how he fell ill and dreamed of the death and transformation of his beloved, how she passed away, and how his health declined from grief, how the gentle affection of another lady almost pulled his heart away from his first love, how Beatrice appeared to him in a vision and reclaimed his heart, and finally how he had a vision that inspired him to dedicate himself to study so he could better honor her, who looks upon the face of God forever. This straightforward story is interspersed with sonnets, ballads, and canzoni, arranged with remarkable symmetry, which Professor Charles Eliot Norton was the first to highlight, mostly written at the time to underscore the various moods of his changing passion. After nearly every piece, there's an explanation in prose meant to clarify the thoughts and arguments for those unfamiliar with the language of poetry. Overall, it has a somewhat artificial feel, despite its undeniable beauty, showing that Dante was still influenced by the Dugentisti, many of whose ideas he echoes. The book was likely completed by 1300 and was first printed by Sermartelli in Florence in 1576.

Besides the smaller poems contained in the Vita Nuova and Convito there are a considerable number of canzoni, ballate and sonnetti bearing the poet’s name. Of these many undoubtedly are genuine, others as undoubtedly Canzoniere. spurious. Some which have been preserved under the name of Dante belong to Dante de Maiano, a poet of a harsher style; others which bear the name of Aldighiero are referable to Dante’s sons Jacopo or Pietro, or to his grandsons; others may be ascribed to Dante’s contemporaries and predecessors Cino da Pistoia and others. Those which are genuine secure Dante a place among lyrical poets scarcely if at all inferior to that of Petrarch. Most of these were printed in Sonetti e canzoni (Giunta, 1527). The best edition of the Canzoniere of Dante is that by Fraticelli published by Barbéra at Florence. His collection includes seventy-eight genuine poems, eight doubtful and fifty-four spurious. To these are added an Italian paraphrase of the seven penitential psalms in terza rima, and a similar paraphrase of the Credo, the seven sacraments, the ten commandments, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ave Maria.

Besides the shorter poems in the Vita Nuova and Convito, there are quite a few canzoni, ballate, and sonnetti attributed to the poet. Many of these are definitely authentic, while others are clearly Songbook. Some poems preserved under Dante's name actually belong to Dante de Maiano, a poet with a rougher style; others that are attributed to Aldighiero may be linked to Dante's sons, Jacopo or Pietro, or his grandsons; and some can be credited to Dante’s contemporaries or predecessors, like Cino da Pistoia and others. The genuine works secure Dante’s position among lyrical poets, rivaling that of Petrarch. Most of these were published in Sonetti e canzoni (Giunta, 1527). The best edition of Dante's Canzoniere is by Fraticelli, published by Barbéra in Florence. His collection contains seventy-eight authentic poems, eight that are questionable, and fifty-four that are not genuine. It also includes an Italian paraphrase of the seven penitential psalms in terza rima, along with similar paraphrases of the Credo, the seven sacraments, the ten commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ave Maria.

816

816

The Latin treatise De monarchia, in three books, contains the mature statement of Dante’s political ideas. In it he propounds the theory that the supremacy of the emperor is derived from the supremacy of the Roman people over the De monarchia. world, which was given to them direct from God. As the emperor is intended to assure their earthly happiness, so does their spiritual welfare depend upon the pope, to whom the emperor is to do honour as to the first-born of the Father. The date of its publication is almost universally admitted to be the time of the descent of Henry VII. into Italy, between 1310 and 1313, although its composition may have been in hand from a much earlier period. The book was first printed by Oporinus at Basel in 1559, and placed on the Index of forbidden books.

The Latin treatise De monarchia, made up of three books, presents Dante’s developed political ideas. In it, he argues that the emperor's authority comes from the Roman people's dominance over the world, a power granted to them directly by God. Just as the emperor is meant to ensure their physical well-being, their spiritual health relies on the pope, whom the emperor should honor like the first-born of the Father. The book is generally believed to have been published around the time Henry VII came to Italy, between 1310 and 1313, though it may have been written much earlier. It was first printed by Oporinus in Basel in 1559 and was later placed on the Index of forbidden books.

The treatise De vulgari eloquentia, in two books, also in Latin, is mentioned in the Convito. Its object was first to establish the Italian language as a literary tongue, and to distinguish the noble or “courtly” speech which might become the De vulgari eloquentia. property of the whole nation, at once a bond of internal unity and a line of demarcation against external nations, from the local dialects peculiar to different districts; and secondly, to lay down rules for poetical composition in the language so established. The work was intended to be in four books, but only two are extant. The first of these deals with the language, the second with the style and with the composition of the canzone. The third was probably intended to continue this subject, and the fourth was destined to the laws of the ballata and sonetto. It contains much acute criticism of poetry and poetic diction. This work was first published in the Italian translation of Trissino at Vicenza in 1529. The original Latin was not published till 1577 at Paris by Jacopo Corbinelli, one of the Italians who were brought from Florence by Catherine de’ Medici, from a MS. now preserved at Grenoble. The work was probably left unfinished in consequence of Dante’s death.

The treatise De vulgari eloquentia, in two books and also in Latin, is mentioned in the Convito. Its purpose was first to establish the Italian language as a literary language and to differentiate the noble or “courtly” speech that could become the property of the entire nation, serving as a bond of internal unity and a boundary against other nations, from the local dialects unique to different regions; and secondly, to set forth rules for poetic composition in the established language. The work was supposed to have four books, but only two exist today. The first book discusses the language, while the second focuses on style and the composition of the canzone. The third was likely intended to continue this subject, and the fourth was meant for the laws of the ballata and sonetto. It includes insightful critiques of poetry and poetic diction. This work was first published in the Italian translation by Trissino in Vicenza in 1529. The original Latin text wasn't published until 1577 in Paris by Jacopo Corbinelli, one of the Italians brought from Florence by Catherine de’ Medici, and based on a manuscript now kept at Grenoble. The work was likely left unfinished due to Dante’s death.

Boccaccio mentions in his life of Dante that he wrote two eclogues in Latin in answer to Johannes de Virgilio, who invited him to come from Ravenna to Bologna and compose a great work in the Latin language. The most interesting Eclogues. passage in the work is that in the first poem, where he expresses his hope that when he has finished the three parts of his great poem his grey hairs may be crowned with laurel on the banks of the Arno. Although the Latin of these poems is superior to that of his prose works, we may feel thankful that Dante composed the great work of his life in his own vernacular. The versification, however, is good, and there are pleasant touches of gentle humour. The Eclogues have been edited by Messrs Wicksteed and Gardiner (Dante and Giovanni del Virgilio, London, 1902).

Boccaccio mentions in his biography of Dante that he wrote two eclogues in Latin in response to Johannes de Virgilio, who invited him to travel from Ravenna to Bologna and create a significant work in Latin. The most intriguing part of the work is in the first poem, where he shares his hope that when he finishes the three parts of his great poem, his grey hairs may be crowned with laurel on the banks of the Arno. Although the Latin in these poems is better than in his prose works, we can be grateful that Dante wrote the great work of his life in his own language. The verse is solid, and there are nice touches of gentle humor. The Eclogues have been edited by Messrs Wicksteed and Gardiner (Dante and Giovanni del Virgilio, London, 1902).

A treatise De aqua et terra has come down to us, which Dante tells us was delivered at Mantua in January 1320 (perhaps 1321) as a solution of the question which was being at that time much discussed—whether in any place on the De aqua et terra. earth’s surface water is higher than the earth. It was first published at Venice in 1508, by an ecclesiastic named Moncetti, from a MS. which he alleged to be in his possession, but which no one seems to have seen. Its genuineness is accordingly very doubtful; but Dr Moore has from internal evidence made out a very strong case for it.

A treatise De aqua et terra has come down to us, which Dante tells us was delivered in Mantua in January 1320 (possibly 1321) as a response to the question that was widely debated at the time—whether there are any places on the earth’s surface where water is higher than the land. It was first published in Venice in 1508 by an ecclesiastic named Moncetti, from a manuscript he claimed to possess, though no one seems to have seen it. Its authenticity is therefore very questionable; however, Dr. Moore has made a compelling case for it based on internal evidence.

The Letters of Dante are among the most important materials for his biography. Giovanni Villani mentions three as specially remarkable—one to the government of Florence, in which he complains of undeserved exile; another to Letters. the emperor Henry VII., when he lingered too long at the siege of Brescia; and a third to the Italian cardinals to urge them to the election of an Italian pope after the death of Clement V. The first of these letters has not come down to us, the two last are extant. Besides these we have one addressed to the cardinal da Prato, one to a Florentine friend refusing the base conditions of return from exile, one to the princes and lords of Italy to prepare them for the coming of Henry of Luxembourg, another to the Florentines reproaching them with the rejection of the emperor, and a long letter to Can Grande della Scala, containing directions for interpreting the Divina Commedia, with especial reference to the Paradiso. Of less importance are the letters to the nephews of Count Alessandro da Romena, to the marquis Moroello Malespina, to Cino da Pistoia and to Guido da Polenta. The genuineness of all the letters has at one time or another been impugned; but the more important are now generally accepted. They have been translated by Mr C. S. Latham, ed. by Mr G. R. Carpenter (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1891).

The Letters of Dante are some of the most significant sources for his biography. Giovanni Villani highlights three that are particularly notable—one to the government of Florence, where he complains about his unjust exile; another to Emperor Henry VII., criticizing him for staying too long at the siege of Brescia; and a third to the Italian cardinals, urging them to elect an Italian pope after Clement V's death. The first of these letters has not survived, but the last two still exist. In addition to these, we have one addressed to Cardinal da Prato, one to a Florentine friend rejecting the disgraceful terms for returning from exile, one to the princes and lords of Italy to prepare them for the arrival of Henry of Luxembourg, another to the Florentines criticizing them for rejecting the emperor, and a lengthy letter to Can Grande della Scala, providing guidance for interpreting the Divina Commedia, particularly the Paradiso. Less significant are the letters to the nephews of Count Alessandro da Romena, to Marquis Moroello Malespina, to Cino da Pistoia, and to Guido da Polenta. The authenticity of all the letters has been questioned at some point, but the more significant ones are now generally accepted. They have been translated by Mr. C. S. Latham, edited by Mr. G. R. Carpenter (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1891).

Dante’s reputation has passed through many vicissitudes, and much trouble has been spent by critics in comparing him with other poets of established fame. Read and commented upon with more admiration than intelligence in the Italian universities in the generation immediately succeeding his death, his name became obscured as the sun of the Renaissance rose higher towards its meridian. In the 16th century he was held inferior to Petrarch; in the 17th and first half of the 18th he was almost universally neglected. His fame is now fully vindicated. Translations and commentaries issue from every press in Europe and America, and many studies for separate points are appearing every year.

Dante's reputation has gone through many ups and downs, and critics have spent a lot of effort comparing him to other well-known poets. After his death, he was read and discussed with more admiration than understanding in Italian universities, and as the Renaissance reached its peak, his name became less prominent. In the 16th century, he was considered inferior to Petrarch, and during the 17th and the first half of the 18th centuries, he was mostly ignored. Now, his fame is fully restored. Translations and commentaries are being published by presses across Europe and America, and new studies on specific topics about him are appearing every year.

Authorities.—It would be impossible here to give anything like a complete account even of the editions of Dante’s works; still more of the books which have been written to elucidate the Commedia as a whole, or particular points in it. The section “Dante” in the British Museum catalogue down to 1887 occupies twenty-nine folio pages; the supplement, to 1900, as many more. The catalogue of the Fiske collection, in Cornell University library, is in two quarto volumes and covers 606 pages. A few of the more important editions and of the more valuable commentaries and aids may, however, be recorded.

Authorities.—It would be impossible to provide a complete overview of all the editions of Dante’s works, let alone the books written to explain the Commedia in general or specific aspects of it. The section “Dante” in the British Museum catalog up to 1887 spans twenty-nine folio pages, and the supplement to 1900 adds just as many. The catalog of the Fiske collection at Cornell University library is in two quarto volumes and consists of 606 pages. However, a few of the more important editions and some valuable commentaries and aids can be noted.

Editions.—The Commedia was first printed by John Numeister at Foligno, in April 1472. Two other editions followed in the same year: one at Jesi (Federicus Veronensis), and Mantua (Georgius et Paulus Teutonici). These, together with a Naples edition of about 1477 (Francesco del Tuppo), were included by Lord Vernon in Le Prime Quattro Edizioni (1858). Another Neapolitan edition, without printer’s name, is dated 1477, and in the same year Wendelin of Spires published the first Venetian edition. Milan followed in 1478 with that known from the name of its editor as the Nidobeatine. In 1481 appeared the first Florentine edition (Nicolo and Lorenzo della Magna) with the commentary of Cristoforo Landino, and a series of copper engravings ascribed to Baccio Baldini, varying in number in different copies from two to twenty; a sumptuous and very carelessly printed volume. Venice supplied most of the editions for many years to come. Altogether twelve existed by the end of the century. In 1502 Aldus produced the first “pocket” edition in his new “italic” type, probably cut from the handwriting of his friend Bembo. A second edition of this is dated 1515. The firm of Giunta at Florence printed the poem in a small volume with cuts, in 1506; and for the rest of the 16th century edition follows edition, to the number of about thirty in all. The most noteworthy commentaries are those of Alessandro Vellutello (Venice, 1544), and Bernardo Daniello (Venice, 1568), both of Lucca. The Cruscan Academicians edited the text in 1595. The first edition with woodcuts is that of Boninus de Boninis (Brescia, 1487). Bernardino Benali followed at Venice in 1491, and from that time onward few if any of the folio editions are without them. The 17th century produced three (or perhaps four) small, shabby and inaccurate editions. In 1716 a revival of interest in Dante had set in, and before 1800 some score of editions had appeared, the best-known being those of G. A. Volpi (Padua, 1727), Pompeo Venturi (Venice, 1739) and Baldassare Lombardi (Rome, 1791).

Editions.—The Commedia was first printed by John Numeister in Foligno in April 1472. Two other editions came out that same year: one in Jesi (Federicus Veronensis) and one in Mantua (Georgius et Paulus Teutonici). These, along with a Naples edition from around 1477 (Francesco del Tuppo), were included by Lord Vernon in Le Prime Quattro Edizioni (1858). Another Neapolitan edition, with no printer’s name, is dated 1477, and that same year Wendelin of Spires published the first Venetian edition. Milan followed in 1478 with the edition known as the Nidobeatine, named after its editor. In 1481, the first Florentine edition (Nicolo and Lorenzo della Magna) was released, featuring commentary by Cristoforo Landino and a series of copper engravings attributed to Baccio Baldini, with the number of engravings varying from two to twenty in different copies; it was an extravagant and very poorly printed volume. Venice provided most of the editions for many years to come, totaling twelve by the end of the century. In 1502, Aldus released the first “pocket” edition in his new “italic” type, probably inspired by the handwriting of his friend Bembo. A second edition of this was dated 1515. The Giunta firm in Florence printed the poem in a small volume with illustrations in 1506, and throughout the rest of the 16th century, edition after edition followed, totaling about thirty overall. Notable commentaries include those by Alessandro Vellutello (Venice, 1544) and Bernardo Daniello (Venice, 1568), both from Lucca. The Cruscan Academicians edited the text in 1595. The first edition with woodcuts came from Boninus de Boninis (Brescia, 1487). Bernardino Benali followed in Venice in 1491, and from that point on, few if any of the folio editions were without illustrations. The 17th century saw three (or possibly four) small, poorly made, and inaccurate editions. In 1716, there was a resurgence of interest in Dante, and by the year 1800, around twenty editions had appeared, with the most notable being those by G. A. Volpi (Padua, 1727), Pompeo Venturi (Venice, 1739), and Baldassare Lombardi (Rome, 1791).

Commentaries.—The Commedia began to be the subject of commentaries as soon as, if not before, the author was in his grave. One known as the Anonimo until in 1881 Dr Moore identified its writer as Graziole de’ Bambaglioli, was in course of writing in 1324. It was published by Lord Vernon, to whose munificence we owe the accessibility of most of the earlier commentaries, in 1848. That of Jacopo della Lana is thought to have been composed before 1340. It was printed in the Venice and Milan editions of 1477, and 1478 respectively. The so-called Ottimo Comento (Pisa, 1837) is of about the same date. It embodies parts of Lana’s, but is largely an independent work. Witte ascribes it to Andrea della Lancia, a Florentine notary. Dante’s sons Pietro and Jacopo also commented on their father’s poem. Their works were published, again at Lord Vernon’s expense, in 1845 and 1848. Boccaccio’s lectures on the Commedia, cut short at Inf. xvii. 17 by his death in 1375, are accessible in various forms. His work was achieved by his disciple Benvenuto Rambaldi of Imola (d. c. 1390). Benvenuto’s commentary, written in Latin, genial in temper, and often acute, was popular from the first. Extracts from it were used as notes in many MSS. Much of it was printed by Muratori in his Antiquitates Italicae; but the entire work was first published in 1887 by Mr William Warren Vernon, with the aid of Sir James Lacaita. No greater boon has ever been offered to students of Dante. Another early annotator who must not be overlooked is Francesco da Buti of Pisa, who lectured in that city towards the close 817 of the same century. His commentary, which served as the basis of Landino’s already mentioned, was first printed in Pisa in 1858. One more commentary deserves mention. During the council of Constance, John of Serravalle, bishop of Fermo, fell in with the English bishops Robert Hallam and Nicholas Bubwith, and at their request compiled a voluminous exposition of the Commedia. This remained in MS. till recently, when it was printed in a costly form.

Commentaries.—The Commedia started getting commentaries as soon as, if not before, the author passed away. One known as the Anonimo until 1881, when Dr. Moore identified its author as Graziole de’ Bambaglioli, was being written in 1324. It was published by Lord Vernon, to whom we owe the availability of most of the earlier commentaries, in 1848. Jacopo della Lana's commentary is believed to have been written before 1340. It was printed in the Venice and Milan editions of 1477 and 1478, respectively. The so-called Ottimo Comento (Pisa, 1837) is from about the same time. It includes parts of Lana’s work but is largely independent. Witte attributes it to Andrea della Lancia, a Florentine notary. Dante’s sons, Pietro and Jacopo, also commented on their father’s poem. Their works were published, again at Lord Vernon’s expense, in 1845 and 1848. Boccaccio’s lectures on the Commedia, which were cut short at Inf. xvii. 17 by his death in 1375, are available in various forms. His work was completed by his student Benvenuto Rambaldi of Imola (d. c. 1390). Benvenuto’s commentary, written in Latin, friendly in tone, and often insightful, was popular from the start. Extracts from it were used as notes in many manuscripts. Much of it was printed by Muratori in his Antiquitates Italicae; however, the entire work was first published in 1887 by Mr. William Warren Vernon, with assistance from Sir James Lacaita. No greater gift has ever been given to students of Dante. Another early annotator who shouldn’t be overlooked is Francesco da Buti of Pisa, who lectured in that city toward the end of the same century. His commentary, which was the basis for Landino’s previously mentioned work, was first printed in Pisa in 1858. One more commentary is noteworthy. During the Council of Constance, John of Serravalle, bishop of Fermo, met with the English bishops Robert Hallam and Nicholas Bubwith, and at their request, compiled a large exposition of the Commedia. This remained in manuscript form until recently when it was printed in an expensive edition.

Translations.—Probably the first complete translation of Dante into a modern language was the Castilian version of Villena (1428). In the following year Andreu Febrer produced a rendering into Catalan verse. In 1515 Villegas published the Inferno in Spanish. The earliest French version is that of B. Grangier (1597). Chaucer has rendered several passages beautifully, and similar fragments are embedded in Milton and others. But the first attempt to reproduce any considerable portion of the poem was made by Rogers, who only completed the Inferno (1782). The entire poem appeared first in English in the version of Henry Boyd (1802) in six-line stanzas; but the first adequate rendering is the admirable blank verse of H. F. Cary (1814, 2nd ed. 1819), which has remained the standard translation, though others of merit, notably those of Pollock (1854) and Longfellow (1867) in blank verse, Plumptre (1887) and Haselfoot (1887) in terza rima; J. A. Carlyle (Inferno only, 1847). C. E. Norton (1891), and H. F. Tozer (1904), in prose, have since appeared. The best in German are those of “Philalethes” (the late King John of Saxony) and Witte, both in blank verse.

Translations.—Probably the first complete translation of Dante into a modern language was the Castilian version by Villena (1428). The following year, Andreu Febrer produced a version in Catalan verse. In 1515, Villegas published the Inferno in Spanish. The earliest French version is by B. Grangier (1597). Chaucer beautifully rendered several passages, and similar fragments are found in Milton and others. However, the first major attempt to translate any substantial part of the poem was made by Rogers, who only completed the Inferno (1782). The entire poem was first published in English in the version by Henry Boyd (1802) in six-line stanzas; but the first significant translation is the outstanding blank verse by H. F. Cary (1814, 2nd ed. 1819), which has remained the standard translation, although there are other notable works, particularly the blank verse translations by Pollock (1854) and Longfellow (1867), and the versions in terza rima by Plumptre (1887) and Haselfoot (1887); J. A. Carlyle translated only the Inferno (1847). C. E. Norton (1891) and H. F. Tozer (1904) have also produced prose translations. The best in German are those by “Philalethes” (the late King John of Saxony) and Witte, both in blank verse.

Modern Editions and Commentaries.—The first serious attempt to establish an accurate text in recent times was made by Carl Witte, whose edition (1862) has been subsequently used as the basis for the text of the Commedia in the Oxford edition of Dante’s complete works (1896 and later issues). Dr Toynbee’s text (1900) follows the Oxford, with some modifications. The notes of Cary, Longfellow, Witte and “Philalethes,” appended to their several translations, and Tozer’s, in an independent volume, are valuable. Scartazzini’s commentary is the most voluminous that has appeared since the 15th century. With a good deal of superfluous, and some superficial, erudition, it cannot be neglected by any one who wishes to study the poem thoroughly. An edition by A.J. Butler contains a prose version and notes. Of modern Italian editions, Bianchi’s and Fraticelli’s are still as good as any.

Modern Editions and Commentaries.—The first serious effort to create an accurate text in recent times was made by Carl Witte, whose edition (1862) has been used as the foundation for the text of the Commedia in the Oxford edition of Dante’s complete works (1896 and later versions). Dr. Toynbee’s text (1900) follows the Oxford version, with some changes. The notes by Cary, Longfellow, Witte, and “Philalethes,” attached to their various translations, along with Tozer’s in a separate volume, are valuable. Scartazzini’s commentary is the most extensive that has come out since the 15th century. While it includes a lot of unnecessary and, at times, superficial information, it cannot be overlooked by anyone who wants to study the poem in depth. An edition by A.J. Butler includes a prose version and notes. Among modern Italian editions, Bianchi’s and Fraticelli’s remain some of the best.

Other Aids.—For beginners no introduction is equal to the essay on Dante by the late Dean Church. Maria Rossetti’s Shadow of Dante is also useful. A Study of Dante, by J. A. Symonds, is interesting. More advanced students will find Dr Toynbee’s Dante Dictionary indispensable, and Dr E. Moore’s Studies in Dante of great service in its discussion of difficult places. Two concordances, to the Commedia by Dr Fay (Cambridge, Mass., 1888), and to the minor works by Messrs Sheldon and White (Oxford, 1905), are due to American scholars. Mr W. W. Vernon’s Readings in Dante have profited many students. Dante’s minor works still lack thorough editing and scholarly elucidation, with the exception of the De vulgari eloquentia, which has been well handled by Professor Pio Rajna (1896), and the Vita Nuova by F. Beck (1896) and Barbi (1907). Good translations of the latter by D. G. Rossetti and C. E. Norton, and of the De monarchia by F. C. Church and P. H. Wicksteed are in existence. The best text is that of the Oxford Dante, though much confessedly remains to be done. The dates of their original publication have already been given.

Other Aids.—For beginners, no introduction is as good as the essay on Dante by the late Dean Church. Maria Rossetti’s Shadow of Dante is also helpful. A Study of Dante by J. A. Symonds is interesting. More advanced students will find Dr. Toynbee’s Dante Dictionary essential, and Dr. E. Moore’s Studies in Dante very useful in discussing challenging topics. Two concordances, one to the Commedia by Dr. Fay (Cambridge, Mass., 1888), and one to the minor works by Messrs Sheldon and White (Oxford, 1905), were created by American scholars. Mr. W. W. Vernon’s Readings in Dante have benefited many students. Dante’s minor works still need thorough editing and scholarly explanation, except for the De vulgari eloquentia, which has been well edited by Professor Pio Rajna (1896), and the Vita Nuova by F. Beck (1896) and Barbi (1907). Good translations of the latter exist by D. G. Rossetti and C. E. Norton, and of the De monarchia by F. C. Church and P. H. Wicksteed. The best text is from the Oxford Dante, although there is still a lot of work to be done. The original publication dates have already been given.

Bibliography.—The first attempt at a bibliography of editions of Dante was made in Pasquali’s edition of his collected works (Venice, 1739); but the first really adequate work on the subject is that of the viscount Colomb de Batines (1846-1848). A supplement by Dr Guido Biagi appeared in 1888. Julius Petzholdt had already covered some of the same ground in Bibliographia Dantea, extending from 1865 to 1880. The period from 1891 to 1900 has been dealt with by SS. Passerini and Mazzi in Un Decennio di bibliografia Dantesca (1905). The catalogues of the two libraries already named, and that of Harvard University, are worth consulting. For the MSS. Dr E. Moore’s Textual Criticism (1889) is the most complete guide.

References.—The first attempt at a bibliography of Dante's editions was made in Pasquali’s edition of his collected works (Venice, 1739); however, the first truly comprehensive work on the subject is by Viscount Colomb de Batines (1846-1848). A supplement by Dr. Guido Biagi was published in 1888. Julius Petzholdt had already covered some of the same material in Bibliographia Dantea, which ran from 1865 to 1880. The period from 1891 to 1900 was addressed by SS. Passerini and Mazzi in Un Decennio di bibliografia Dantesca (1905). The catalogs of the two libraries previously mentioned, along with that of Harvard University, are worth checking out. For manuscripts, Dr. E. Moore’s Textual Criticism (1889) is the most complete guide.

(A. J. B.*)

DANTON, GEORGE JACQUES (1759-1794), one of the most conspicuous actors in the decisive episodes of the French Revolution, was born at Arcis-sur-Aube on the 26th of October 1759. His family was of respectable quality, though of very moderate means. They contrived to give him a good education, and he was launched in the career of an advocate at the Paris bar. When the Revolution broke out, it found Danton following his profession with apparent success, leading a cheerful domestic life, and nourishing his intelligence on good books. He first appears in the revolutionary story as president of the popular club or assembly of the district in which he lived. This was the famous club of the Cordeliers, so called from the circumstance that its meetings were held in the old convent of the order of the Cordeliers, just as the Jacobins derived their name from the refectory of the convent of the Jacobin brothers. It is an odd coincidence that the old rivalries of Dominicans and Franciscans in the democratic movement inside the Catholic Church should be recalled by the names of the two factions in the democratic movement of a later century away from the church. The Cordeliers were from the first the centre of the popular principle in the French Revolution carried to its extreme point; they were the earliest to suspect the court of being irreconcilably hostile to freedom; and it was they who most vehemently proclaimed the need for root-and-branch measures. Danton’s robust, energetic and impetuous temperament made him the natural leader in such a quarter. We find no traces of his activity in the two great insurrectionary events of 1789—the fall of the Bastille, and the forcible removal of the court from Versailles to the Tuileries. In the spring of 1790 we hear his voice urging the people to prevent the arrest of Marat. In the autumn we find him chosen to be the commander of the battalion of the national guard of his district. In the beginning of 1791 he was elected to the post of administrator of the department of Paris. This interval was for all France a barren period of doubt, fatigue, partial reaction and hoping against hope. It was not until 1792 that Danton came into the prominence of a great revolutionary chief.

DANTON, GEORGE JACQUES (1759-1794), one of the most significant figures in the key events of the French Revolution, was born in Arcis-sur-Aube on October 26, 1759. His family was respectable but had limited means. They managed to provide him with a solid education, and he began his career as a lawyer at the Paris bar. When the Revolution started, Danton was pursuing his profession with apparent success, enjoying a happy family life, and sharpening his mind with good books. He first appears in revolutionary history as the president of the local popular club or assembly in his district. This was the famous Cordeliers club, named because its meetings were held in the old convent of the Cordeliers order, just as the Jacobins were named after the convent of the Jacobin brothers. It's an interesting coincidence that the historical rivalries between Dominicans and Franciscans in the democratic movement within the Catholic Church are echoed in the names of the two factions in a later century’s democratic movement away from the church. From the start, the Cordeliers became the center of the popular principle in the French Revolution, taken to an extreme; they were the first to suspect that the court was fundamentally hostile to freedom, and they were the most vocal in demanding drastic measures. Danton’s strong, energetic, and impulsive personality made him a natural leader in that environment. There are no records of his involvement in the two major uprisings of 1789—the storming of the Bastille and the forced relocation of the court from Versailles to the Tuileries. In the spring of 1790, we hear him urging the people to stop the arrest of Marat. In the fall, he was chosen as the commander of the national guard battalion for his district. At the beginning of 1791, he was elected as the administrator of the Paris department. This period was marked across France by uncertainty, exhaustion, partial setbacks, and a sense of keeping hope alive. Danton didn’t rise to prominence as a major revolutionary leader until 1792.

In the spring of the previous year (1791) Mirabeau had died, and with him had passed away the only man who was at all likely to prove a wise guide to the court. In June of that year the king and queen made a disastrous attempt to flee from their capital and their people. They were brought back once more to the Tuileries, which from that time forth they rightly looked upon more as a prison than a palace or a home. The popular exasperation was intense, and the constitutional leaders, of whom the foremost was Lafayette, became alarmed and lost their judgment. A bloody dispersion of a popular gathering, known afterwards as the massacre of the Champ-de-Mars (July 1791), kindled a flame of resentment against the court and the constitutional party which was never extinguished. The Constituent Assembly completed its infertile labours in September 1791. Then the elections took place to its successor, the short-lived Legislative Assembly. Danton was not elected to it, and his party was at this time only strong enough to procure for him a very subordinate post in the government of the Parisian municipality. Events, however, rapidly prepared a situation in which his influence became of supreme weight. Between January and August 1792 the want of sympathy between the aims of the popular assembly and the spirit of the king and the queen became daily more flagrant and beyond power of disguise. In April war was declared against Austria, and to the confusion and distraction caused by the immense civil and political changes of the past two years was now added the ferment and agitation of war with an enemy on the frontier. The distrust felt by Paris for the court and its loyalty at length broke out in insurrection. On the memorable morning of the 10th of August 1792 the king and queen took refuge with the Legislative Assembly from the apprehended violence of the popular forces who were marching on the Tuileries. The share which Danton had in inspiring and directing this momentous rising is very obscure. Some look upon him as the head and centre of it. Apart from documents, support is given to this view by the fact that on the morrow of the fall of the monarchy Danton is found in the important post of minister of justice. This sudden rise from the subordinate office which he had held in the commune is a proof of the impression that his character had made on the insurrectionary party. To passionate fervour for the popular cause he added a certain broad steadfastness and an energetic practical judgment which are not always found in company with fervour. Even in those days, when so many men were so astonishing in their eloquence, Danton stands out as a master of commanding phrase. One of his fierce sayings has become a proverb. Against Brunswick and the invaders, “il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace,”—we must dare, and again dare, and for ever dare. The tones of his voice were loud and vibrant. As for his bodily presence, he had, to use his own account of it, the athletic shape and the stern physiognomy of the Liberty for which he was ready to die. Jove the Thunderer, the rebel Satan, a Titan, Sardanapalus, were names that friends or enemies borrowed to describe his mien and port. He was 818 thought about as a coarser version of the great tribune of the Constituent Assembly; he was called the Mirabeau of the sansculottes, and Mirabeau of the markets.

In the spring of the previous year (1791), Mirabeau had died, taking with him the only person likely to effectively guide the court. In June that year, the king and queen made a disastrous attempt to escape from their capital and people. They were brought back to the Tuileries, which from then on they rightfully saw more as a prison than as a palace or home. The public anger was intense, and the constitutional leaders, led by Lafayette, became alarmed and lost their judgment. A bloody crackdown on a public gathering, later known as the massacre of the Champ-de-Mars (July 1791), ignited lasting resentment against the court and the constitutional party. The Constituent Assembly wrapped up its unproductive work in September 1791. Elections followed for its successor, the short-lived Legislative Assembly. Danton wasn’t elected, and at that time, his party was only strong enough to get him a very minor position in the government of Paris. However, events quickly created a situation where his influence became extremely significant. Between January and August 1792, the growing disconnect between the popular assembly’s goals and the king and queen’s intentions became increasingly evident. In April, war was declared against Austria, adding to the chaos and upheaval from the significant civil and political changes of the previous two years, along with the unrest caused by war with a foreign enemy. The mistrust felt by Paris toward the court and its loyalty eventually erupted into insurrection. On the memorable morning of August 10, 1792, the king and queen sought refuge with the Legislative Assembly to escape the angry crowds marching toward the Tuileries. Danton's role in inspiring and leading this pivotal uprising is not clear. Some view him as its chief organizer. Beyond the documents, this perspective is reinforced by the fact that after the monarchy’s fall, Danton was in the significant role of minister of justice. His sudden rise from the lesser position he held in the commune demonstrates the impact he had on the revolutionary faction. Alongside his passionate commitment to the popular cause, he brought a broad steadiness and energetic practical judgment not always found alongside such fervor. Even in those times when many men were exceptionally eloquent, Danton distinguished himself as a master of powerful rhetoric. One of his fierce statements became a saying: against Brunswick and the invaders, “il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”—we must dare, and dare again, and always dare. His voice was loud and resonant. Regarding his physical presence, he described himself as having the athletic build and stern features of the Liberty he was ready to die for. Names like Jove the Thunderer, the rebel Satan, a Titan, and Sardanapalus were used by friends and foes to characterize his demeanor. He was often seen as a rougher version of the great tribune of the Constituent Assembly; he was called the Mirabeau of the sans-culottes and the Mirabeau of the markets.

In the executive government that was formed on the king’s dethronement, this strong revolutionary figure found himself the colleague of the virtuous Roland and others of the Girondins. Their strength was speedily put to a terrible test. The alarming successes of the enemy on the frontier, and the surrender of two important fortresses, had engendered a natural panic in the capital. But in the breasts of some of the wild men whom the disorder of the time had brought to prominent place in the Paris commune this panic became murderously heated. Some hundreds of captives were barbarously murdered in the prisons. There has always been much dispute as to Danton’s share in this dreadful transaction. At the time, it must be confessed, much odium on account of an imputed direction of the massacres fell to him. On the whole, however, he cannot be fairly convicted of any part in the plan. What he did was to make the best of the misdeed, with a kind of sombre acquiescence. He deserves credit for insisting against his colleagues that they should not flee from Paris, but should remain firm at their posts, doing what they could to rule the fierce storm that was raging around them.

In the government formed after the king was overthrown, this strong revolutionary figure found himself alongside the virtuous Roland and other members of the Girondins. Their strength was quickly put to a severe test. The alarming successes of the enemy at the front and the surrender of two important fortresses had sparked a natural panic in the capital. But among some of the wild men elevated by the chaos of the time in the Paris commune, this panic turned dangerously violent. Hundreds of captives were brutally killed in the prisons. There has always been much debate about Danton’s involvement in this horrific event. At the time, it must be admitted, he faced significant blame due to alleged involvement in directing the massacres. However, overall, he cannot be justly accused of being part of the plan. What he did was try to make the best out of the situation with a kind of grim acceptance. He deserves credit for insisting that his colleagues should not flee from Paris but should stay put and do what they could to manage the fierce chaos around them.

The elections to the National Convention took place in September, when the Legislative Assembly surrendered its authority. The Convention ruled France until October 1795. Danton was a member; resigning the ministry of justice, he took a foremost part in the deliberations and proceedings of the Convention, until his execution in April 1794. This short period of nineteen months was practically the life of Danton, so far as the world is concerned with him.

The elections for the National Convention happened in September, when the Legislative Assembly gave up its power. The Convention governed France until October 1795. Danton was a member; after stepping down from the ministry of justice, he played a major role in the discussions and actions of the Convention, until his execution in April 1794. This brief period of nineteen months was essentially Danton's life, at least in terms of how the world sees him.

He took his seat in the high and remote benches which gave the name of the Mountain to the thoroughgoing revolutionists who sat there. He found himself side by side with Marat, whose exaggerations he never countenanced; with Robespierre, whom he did not esteem very highly, but whose immediate aims were in many respects his own; with Camille Desmoulins and Phélippeaux, who were his close friends and constant partisans. The foes of the Mountain were the group of the Girondins,—eloquent, dazzling, patriotic, but unable to apprehend the fearful nature of the crisis, too full of vanity and exclusive party-spirit, and too fastidious to strike hands with the vigorous and stormy Danton. The Girondins dreaded the people who had sent Danton to the Convention; and they insisted on seeing on his hands the blood of the prison massacres of September. Yet in fact Danton saw much more clearly than they saw how urgent it was to soothe the insurrectionary spirit, after it had done the work of abolition which to him, as to them too, seemed necessary and indispensable. Danton discerned what the Girondins lacked the political genius to see, that this control of Paris could only be wisely effected by men who sympathized with the vehemence and energy of Paris, and understood that this vehemence and energy made the only force to which the Convention could look in resisting the Germans on the north-east frontier, and the friends of reaction in the interior. “Paris,” he said, “is the natural and constituted centre of free France. It is the centre of light. When Paris shall perish there will no longer be a republic.”

He took his seat in the high and distant benches, which earned the name "the Mountain" for the radical revolutionaries who sat there. He found himself next to Marat, whose extreme views he never supported; with Robespierre, whom he didn't think highly of, but whose immediate goals were often aligned with his own; and with Camille Desmoulins and Phélippeaux, who were his close friends and constant allies. The opponents of the Mountain were the Girondins—eloquent, impressive, patriotic, but unable to grasp the serious nature of the crisis, too caught up in their own vanity and party spirit to ally with the passionate and forceful Danton. The Girondins feared the people who had sent Danton to the Convention and accused him of having the blood of the September prison massacres on his hands. Yet, in reality, Danton understood much better than they did the urgent need to calm the rebellious spirit after it had accomplished the necessary work of abolition that was crucial for both him and them. Danton recognized what the Girondins lacked the political insight to see: that controlling Paris could only be effectively managed by those who resonated with the intensity and energy of the city, and understood that this intensity and energy were the only leverage the Convention had to counter both the Germans on the northeast border and the reactionaries within. “Paris,” he said, “is the natural and established center of a free France. It is the center of enlightenment. When Paris falls, there will be no more republic.”

Danton was among those who voted for the death of the king (January 1793). He had a conspicuous share in the creation of the famous revolutionary tribunal, his aim being to take the weapons away from that disorderly popular vengeance which had done such terrible work in September. When all executive power was conferred upon a committee of public safety, Danton had been one of the nine members of whom that body was originally composed. He was despatched on frequent missions from the Convention to the republican armies in Belgium, and wherever he went he infused new energy into the work of national liberation. He pressed forward the erection of a system of national education, and he was one of the legislative committee charged with the construction of a new system of government. He vainly tried to compose the furious dissensions between Girondins and Jacobins. The Girondins were irreconcilable, and made Danton the object of deadly attack. He was far too robust in character to lose himself in merely personal enmities, but by the middle of May (1793) he had made up his mind that the political suppression of the Girondins had become indispensable. The position of the country was most alarming. Dumouriez, the victor of Valmy and Jemmappes, had deserted. The French arms were suffering a series of checks and reverses. A royalist rebellion was gaining formidable dimensions in the west. Yet the Convention was wasting time and force in the vindictive recriminations of faction. There is no positive evidence that Danton directly instigated the insurrection of the 31st of May and the 2nd of June, which ended in the purge of the Convention and the proscription of the Girondins. He afterwards spoke of himself as in some sense the author of this revolution, because a little while before, stung by some trait of factious perversity in the Girondins, he had openly cried out in the midst of the Convention, that if he could only find a hundred men, they would resist the oppressive authority of the Girondin commission of twelve. At any rate, he certainly acquiesced in the violence of the commune, and he publicly gloried in the expulsion of the men who stood obstinately in the way of a vigorous and concentrated exertion of national power. Danton, unlike the Girondins, accepted the fury of popular passion as an inevitable incident in the work of deliverance. Unlike Billaud Varenne or Hébert, or any other of the Terrorist party, he had no wish to use this frightful two-edged weapon more freely than was necessary. Danton, in short, had the instinct of the statesman. His object was to reconcile France with herself; to restore a society that, while emancipated and renewed in every part, should yet be stable; and above all to secure the independence of his country, both by a resolute defence against the invader, and by such a mixture of vigour with humanity as should reconcile the offended opinion of the rest of Europe. This, so far as we can make it out, was what was in his mind.

Danton was one of the people who voted for the king's execution (January 1793). He played a key role in establishing the famous revolutionary tribunal, aiming to take away the tools of chaotic public vengeance that had caused so much destruction in September. When all executive power was given to a committee of public safety, Danton was one of the nine original members of that body. He was often sent on missions from the Convention to the republican armies in Belgium, and wherever he went, he energized the effort for national liberation. He pushed for a national education system and served on the legislative committee responsible for creating a new government structure. He unsuccessfully tried to resolve the intense conflicts between the Girondins and Jacobins. The Girondins were unyielding and targeted Danton with ruthless attacks. He was too strong-willed to get lost in personal grudges, but by mid-May (1793), he had decided that it was necessary to politically suppress the Girondins. The country's situation was dire. Dumouriez, the victor of Valmy and Jemmappes, had defected. The French military was facing a series of defeats. A royalist rebellion was growing significantly in the west. Yet the Convention was wasting time and energy on bitter factional disputes. There's no solid proof that Danton directly encouraged the insurrection on May 31 and June 2, which resulted in the purge of the Convention and the expulsion of the Girondins. He later referred to himself as in some way the instigator of this revolution, because not long before, frustrated by the obstinacy of the Girondins, he had shouted in the middle of the Convention that if he could find just a hundred men, they would stand against the oppressive authority of the Girondin commission of twelve. In any case, he certainly went along with the commune's violence, and he publicly celebrated the removal of those who stubbornly obstructed a strong and focused exertion of national power. Danton, unlike the Girondins, accepted the intensity of popular sentiment as an unavoidable part of the liberation effort. Unlike Billaud Varenne or Hébert, or anyone from the Terrorist faction, he didn't want to wield this terrifying weapon more freely than necessary. In short, Danton had the instincts of a statesman. His goal was to bring France back to harmony; to rebuild a society that, while liberated and revitalized in every aspect, remained stable; and above all to ensure his country's independence, both through a strong defense against invaders and by balancing action with compassion to regain the respect of the rest of Europe. This, as far as we can tell, was what he aimed to accomplish.

The position of the Mountain had now undergone a complete change. In the Constituent Assembly its members did not number more than 30 out of the 578 of the third estate. In the Legislative Assembly they had not been numerous, and none of their chiefs had a seat. In the Convention for the first nine months they had an incessant struggle for their very lives against the Girondins. They were now (June 1793) for the first time in possession of absolute power. It was not easy, however, for men who had for many months been nourished on the ideas and stirred to the methods of opposition, all at once to develop the instincts of government. Actual power was in the hands of the two committees—that of public safety and of general security. Both were chosen out of the body of the Convention. The drama of the nine months between the expulsion of the Girondins and the execution of Danton turns upon the struggle of the committee to retain power—first, against the insurrectionary commune of Paris, and second, against the Convention, from which the committees derived an authority that was regularly renewed on the expiry of each short term.

The position of the Mountain had completely changed. In the Constituent Assembly, they had no more than 30 members out of 578 from the Third Estate. In the Legislative Assembly, they weren't very numerous, and none of their leaders held a seat. During the Convention's first nine months, they were in a constant battle for survival against the Girondins. Now, in June 1793, they were finally in a position of absolute power for the first time. However, it was challenging for people who had spent months focused on opposition tactics to suddenly embrace the instincts of governance. Actual power was held by two committees—the Committee of Public Safety and the Committee of General Security. Both were chosen from within the Convention. The drama during the nine months between the expulsion of the Girondins and the execution of Danton centers on the committee's struggle to maintain power—first against the insurrectionary Paris Commune and then against the Convention, from which the committees derived authority that was regularly renewed at the end of each short term.

Danton, immediately after the fall of the Girondins, had thrown himself with extraordinary energy into the work to be done. The first task in a great city so agitated by anarchical ferment had been to set up a strong central authority. In this genuinely political task Danton was prominent. He was not a member of the committee of public safety when that body was renewed in the shape that speedily made its name so redoubtable all over the world. This was the result of a self-denying ordinance which he imposed upon himself. It was he who proposed that the powers of the committee should be those of a dictator, and that it should have copious funds at its disposal. In order to keep himself clear of any personal suspicion, he announced his resolution not to belong to the body which he had thus done his best to make supreme in the state. His position during the autumn of 1793 was that of a powerful supporter and inspirer, from without, of the government which he had been foremost in setting up. Danton was not a great practical administrator and contriver, like Carnot, for instance. But he had the gift of raising in all who heard him an heroic spirit of patriotism and fiery devotion, and he had a clear eye and a cool judgment in the 819 tempestuous emergencies which arose in such appalling succession. His distinction was that he accepted the insurrectionary forces, instead of blindly denouncing them as the Girondins had done. After these forces had shaken down the throne, and then, by driving away the Girondins, had made room for a vigorous government, Danton perceived the expediency of making all haste to an orderly state. Energetic prosecution of the war, and gradual conciliation of civil hatreds, had been, as we have said, the two marks of his policy ever since the fall of the monarchy. The first of these objects was fulfilled abundantly, partly owing to the energy with which he called for the arming of the whole nation against its enemies. His whole mind was now given to the second of them. But the second of them, alas, was desperate.

Danton, right after the fall of the Girondins, threw himself with incredible energy into the work at hand. The first task in a city so shaken by chaos was to establish a strong central authority. Danton played a key role in this genuinely political task. He wasn't a member of the committee of public safety when it was reformed into the powerful body that soon gained a formidable reputation worldwide. This was due to a self-imposed rule he set for himself. He was the one who suggested that the committee's powers should be dictatorial and that it should have ample funds at its disposal. To avoid any personal suspicion, he declared his decision not to belong to the committee that he had helped make dominant in the state. During the autumn of 1793, he acted as a strong supporter and inspirer from the outside of the government he had helped to establish. Danton wasn't a great practical administrator and strategist like Carnot. But he had the ability to inspire a heroic spirit of patriotism and fierce dedication in everyone who listened to him, and he maintained a clear perspective and calm judgment during the turbulent crises that arose in rapid succession. What set him apart was that he embraced the revolutionary forces, instead of mindlessly condemning them as the Girondins had done. After these forces had toppled the throne and driven away the Girondins to create space for a strong government, Danton recognized the urgency of moving towards an orderly state. The energetic pursuit of war and gradual healing of civil divisions had, as we've noted, been the two main aspects of his policy since the monarchy's fall. The first goal was achieved abundantly, partly due to his vigorous calls for the whole nation to arm against its enemies. Now, his entire focus was on the second goal. But that second goal, unfortunately, was a lost cause.

It was to no purpose that, both in his own action and in the writings of Camille Desmoulins (Le Vieux Cordelier), of whom he was now and always the intimate and inspirer, he worked against the iniquities of the bad men, like Carrier and Collot d’Herbois, in the provinces, and against the severity of the revolutionary tribunal in Paris. The black flood could not at a word or in an hour subside from its storm-lashed fury. The commune of Paris was now composed of men like Hébert and Chaumette, to whom the restoration of any sort of political order was for the time indifferent. They wished to push destruction to limits which even the most ardent sympathizers with the Revolution condemn now, and which Danton condemned then, as extravagant and senseless. Those men were not politicians, they were fanatics; and Danton, who was every inch a politician, though of a vehement type, had as little in common with them as John Calvin of Geneva had with John of Leiden and the Münster Anabaptists. The committee watched Hébert and his followers uneasily for many weeks, less perhaps from disapproval of their excesses than from apprehensions of their hostility to the committee’s own power. At length the party of the commune proposed to revolt against the Convention and the committees. Then the blow was struck, and the Hébertists were swiftly flung into prison, and thence under the knife of the guillotine (March 24th, 1794). The execution of the Hébertists was the first victory of the revolutionary government over the extreme insurrectionary party. But the committees had no intention to concede anything to their enemies on the other side. If they refused to follow the lead of the anarchists of the commune, they were none the more inclined to give way to the Dantonian policy of clemency. Indeed, such a course would have been their own instant and utter ruin. The Terror was not a policy that could be easily transformed. A new policy would have to be carried out by new men, and this meant the resumption of power by the Convention, and the death of the Terrorists. In Thermidor 1794 such a revolution did take place, with those very results. But in Germinal feeling was not ripe. The committees were still too strong to be overthrown. And Danton seems to have shown a singular heedlessness. Instead of striking by vigour in the Convention, he waited to be struck. In these later days a certain discouragement seems to have come over his spirit. His wife had died during his absence on one of his expeditions to the armies; he had now married again, and the rumour went that he was allowing domestic happiness to tempt him from the keen incessant vigilance proper to the politician in such a crisis. He must have known that he had enemies. When the Jacobin club was “purified” in the winter, Danton’s name would have been struck out as a moderate if Robespierre had not defended him. The committees had deliberated on his arrest soon afterwards, and again it was Robespierre who resisted the proposal. Yet though he had been warned of the lightning that was thus playing round his head, Danton did not move. Either he felt himself powerless, or he rashly despised his enemies. At last Billaud Varenne, the most prominent spirit of the committee after Robespierre, succeeded in gaining Robespierre over to his designs against Danton. Robespierre was probably actuated by the motives of selfish policy which soon proved the greatest blunder of his life. The Convention, aided by Robespierre and the authority of the committee, assented with ignoble unanimity. On the 30th of March Danton, Desmoulins and others of the party were suddenly arrested. Danton displayed such vehemence before the revolutionary tribunal, that his enemies feared lest he should excite the crowd in his favour. The Convention, in one of its worst fits of cowardice, assented to a proposal made by St Just that, if a prisoner showed want of respect for justice, the tribunal might pronounce sentence without further delay. Danton was at once condemned, and led, in company with fourteen others, including Camille Desmoulins, to the guillotine (April 5th, 1794). “I leave it all in a frightful welter,” he said; “not a man of them has an idea of government. Robespierre will follow me; he is dragged down by me. Ah, better be a poor fisherman than meddle with the government of men!”

It was pointless for him, both in his own actions and in the writings of Camille Desmoulins (Le Vieux Cordelier), who was always his close friend and inspiration, to fight against the injustices of people like Carrier and Collot d’Herbois in the provinces, and to push back against the harshness of the revolutionary tribunal in Paris. The overwhelming chaos couldn’t be calmed down with just a word or in an hour. The Paris commune was made up of people like Hébert and Chaumette, who were indifferent to restoring any kind of political order at that time. They wanted to take destruction to extremes that even the staunchest supporters of the Revolution now condemn, and which Danton condemned at the time as outrageous and nonsensical. Those men were not politicians; they were fanatics. Danton, who was a true politician, albeit a passionate one, had as little in common with them as John Calvin of Geneva had with John of Leiden and the Münster Anabaptists. The committee kept a wary eye on Hébert and his followers for many weeks, perhaps not so much out of disapproval of their excesses, but more out of fear of their hostility towards the committee's own power. Eventually, the commune's faction proposed to revolt against the Convention and the committees. Then the strike came, and the Hébertists were quickly imprisoned and then executed by guillotine (March 24th, 1794). The execution of the Hébertists marked the first victory of the revolutionary government over the extreme insurrectionist faction. However, the committees were not willing to give anything to their enemies on the other side. While they refused to follow the anarchists of the commune, they were also unwilling to yield to Danton's calls for mercy. In fact, adopting such a stance would have led to their own swift and complete downfall. The Terror was not a policy that could be easily changed. A new approach would require new people at the helm, meaning the Convention would need to reclaim power, leading to the downfall of the Terrorists. In Thermidor 1794, this kind of upheaval occurred, with those expected outcomes. But in Germinal, the time wasn’t right for such a shift. The committees were still too powerful to be taken down. Danton appeared to have become careless. Instead of acting decisively in the Convention, he waited for others to act against him. In those later days, he seemed to be in a state of discouragement. His wife had died while he was away on one of his missions to the armies; he had remarried, and rumors spread that he was letting domestic bliss distract him from the relentless vigilance needed from a politician in such a crisis. He must have known he had enemies. When the Jacobin club was “purified” in the winter, Danton’s name would have been removed as a moderate if Robespierre hadn’t defended him. The committees considered arresting him shortly afterward, and yet again, it was Robespierre who opposed the idea. Although he had been warned about the storm gathering around him, Danton didn’t act. Either he felt powerless, or he foolishly underestimated his enemies. Eventually, Billaud Varenne, the most influential member of the committee after Robespierre, managed to sway Robespierre to align with his plans against Danton. Robespierre was likely driven by selfish motives, which would soon turn out to be the biggest mistake of his life. The Convention, supported by Robespierre and the authority of the committee, agreed with cowardly unanimity. On March 30th, Danton, Desmoulins, and others from the group were abruptly arrested. Danton was so passionate in front of the revolutionary tribunal that his enemies feared he might incite the crowd to support him. The Convention, in one of its most shameful moments of cowardice, approved a proposal from St Just that if a prisoner showed disrespect for justice, the tribunal could pass sentence immediately. Danton was quickly condemned and taken, along with fourteen others, including Camille Desmoulins, to the guillotine (April 5th, 1794). “I leave it all in a frightening mess,” he said; “not a single one of them understands governance. Robespierre will follow me; he is being dragged down by me. Ah, better to be a poor fisherman than to be involved in the government of men!”

Events went as Danton foresaw. The committees presently came to quarrel with the pretensions of Robespierre. Three months after Danton, Robespierre fell. His assent to the execution of Danton had deprived him of the single great force that might have supported him against the committee. The man who had “saved France from Brunswick” might perhaps have saved her from the White reaction of 1794.

Events unfolded just as Danton predicted. The committees soon started to clash with Robespierre's ambitions. Three months after Danton, Robespierre was brought down. His agreement to execute Danton stripped him of the one major ally that could have backed him against the committee. The man who had “saved France from Brunswick” might have also been able to save her from the White reaction of 1794.

Bibliography.—Sources for the life of Danton abound in the national archives and in the columns of the Moniteur. His Œuvres were published by A. Vermorel (Paris, 1866), and his speeches are included in H. Morse Stephens’ Principal Speeches of the Statesmen and Orators of the French Revolution (vol. ii., Oxford, 1892); cf. F. V. Aulard, Les Orateurs de la Législative et de la Convention (Danton and his group; 2 vols., 1885-1886). The charges of corruption freely brought against Danton by contemporaries were accepted by many historians, and he has been persistently accused of instigating or at least abetting, by failure to use the power he possessed, the September massacres. A minute examination of the evidence by F. V. Aulard and J. F. E. Robinet in France, followed by A. H. Beesly in England, has placed his career and his character in a fairer light. The chief books on Danton’s life are:—A. Bougeart, Danton, documents pour servir à l’histoire de la Révolution française (Brussels, 1861); J. F. E. Robinet, Danton, mémoire sur sa vie privée (Paris, 1865), Le Procès des Dantonistes (Paris, 1879), Danton émigré (Paris, 1887), Danton, homme d’état (Paris, 1889); F. V. Aulard, Hist. pol. de la Rév. fr. (Paris, 1901), and Danton (Paris, 1887); A. Dubost, Danton et la politique contemporaine (Paris, 1880); A. H. Beesly, Life of Danton (1899, new ed. 1906); H. Belloc, Danton (1899). There is a short “Life of Danton” in Morse Stephens’ Principal Speeches, cited above. See also C. F. Warwick, Danton and the French Revolution (1909).

References.—There are many sources on Danton’s life in the national archives and in the articles of the Moniteur. His Œuvres were published by A. Vermorel (Paris, 1866), and his speeches can be found in H. Morse Stephens’ Principal Speeches of the Statesmen and Orators of the French Revolution (vol. ii., Oxford, 1892); see also F. V. Aulard, Les Orateurs de la Législative et de la Convention (Danton and his group; 2 vols., 1885-1886). The accusations of corruption made against Danton by his contemporaries were accepted by many historians, and he has continually been accused of either instigating or at least enabling, by not using his power, the September massacres. A detailed examination of the evidence by F. V. Aulard and J. F. E. Robinet in France, followed by A. H. Beesly in England, has cast his career and character in a more favorable light. The main books on Danton’s life are:—A. Bougeart, Danton, documents pour servir à l’histoire de la Révolution française (Brussels, 1861); J. F. E. Robinet, Danton, mémoire sur sa vie privée (Paris, 1865), Le Procès des Dantonistes (Paris, 1879), Danton émigré (Paris, 1887), Danton, homme d’état (Paris, 1889); F. V. Aulard, Hist. pol. de la Rév. fr. (Paris, 1901), and Danton (Paris, 1887); A. Dubost, Danton et la politique contemporaine (Paris, 1880); A. H. Beesly, Life of Danton (1899, new ed. 1906); H. Belloc, Danton (1899). There is a brief “Life of Danton” in Morse Stephens’ Principal Speeches, mentioned above. Also see C. F. Warwick, Danton and the French Revolution (1909).

(J. Mo.)

DANUBE (Ger. Donau, Hungarian Duna, Rumanian Dunarea, Lat. Danubius or Danuvius, and in the lower part of its course Ister), the most important river of Europe as regards the volume of its outflow, but inferior to the Volga in length and in the area of its drainage. It originates at Donaueschingen in the Black Forest, where two mountain streams, the Brigach and the Brege, together with a third stream from the Palace Gardens, unite at an elevation of 2187 ft. above the sea to form the Danube so called. From this point it runs in an easterly direction until it falls into the Black Sea some 1750 m. from its source, being the only European river of importance with a course from west to east. Its basin, which comprises a territory of nearly 300,000 sq. m., is bounded by the Black Forest, some of the minor Alpine ranges, the Bohemian Forest and the Carpathian Mountains on the north, and by the Alps and the Balkan range on the south. From the point where the Danube first becomes navigable, i.e. at its junction with the Iller at Ulm (1505 ft. above sea-level), it is fed by at least 300 tributaries, the principal of which on the right bank are the Inn, the Drave and the Save; while on the left bank are the Theiss or Tisza, the Olt, the Sereth and the Pruth. These seven rivers have a total length of 2920 m. and drain one half of the basin of the Danube.

DANUBE (Ger. Donau, Hungarian Duna, Rumanian Dunarea, Lat. Danubius or Danuvius, and in the lower part of its course Ister), the most significant river in Europe in terms of its outflow volume, but shorter than the Volga and smaller in drainage area. It starts at Donaueschingen in the Black Forest, where two mountain streams, the Brigach and the Brege, along with a third stream from the Palace Gardens, come together at an elevation of 2187 ft. above sea level to form the Danube. From there, it flows east until it empties into the Black Sea about 1750 km away from its source, being the only major European river that runs from west to east. Its basin covers nearly 300,000 sq. km., bordered by the Black Forest, several smaller Alpine ranges, the Bohemian Forest, and the Carpathian Mountains to the north, and by the Alps and the Balkan range to the south. From the point where the Danube first becomes navigable, at its confluence with the Iller at Ulm (1505 ft. above sea level), it is fed by at least 300 tributaries. The main ones on the right bank are the Inn, the Drave, and the Save; while on the left bank are the Theiss or Tisza, the Olt, the Sereth, and the Pruth. These seven rivers have a combined length of 2920 km and drain half of the Danube basin.

The course of this mighty river is rich in historical and political associations. For a long period it formed the frontier of the Roman empire; near Eining (above Regensburg) was the ancient Abusina, which for nearly five centuries Historical and political associations. was the chief Roman outpost against the northern barbarians. Traces of Trajan’s wall still exist between that point and Wiesbaden, while another line of fortifications bearing the same emperor’s name are found in the Dobrudja between Cernavoda (on the lower Danube) and Constantza. At intervening points are still found many notable Roman remains, such as Trajan’s road, a marvellous work on the 820 right bank of the river in the rocky Kazan defile (separating the Balkans on the south from the Carpathians on the north), where a contemporary commemorative tablet is still conspicuously visible. At Turnu Severin below the end of this famous gorge are the remains of a solid masonry bridge constructed by the same emperor at the period of his Dacian conquests. But since Roman days the central Danube has never formed the boundary of a state; on the contrary it became the route followed from east to west by successive hordes of barbarians—the Huns, Avars, Slavs, Magyars and Turks; while the Franks under Charlemagne, the Bavarians and the Crusaders all marched in the opposite direction towards the east. In more modern days its banks were the scenes of many bloody battles during the Napoleonic Wars. Still more recently it has become the great highway of commerce for central Europe. It has been pointed out by J. G. Kohl (Austria and the Danube, London, 1844) and others that, in consequence of the Danube having been in constant use as the line of passage of migratory hostile tribes, it nowhere forms the boundary between two states from Orsova upwards, and thus it traverses as a central artery Württemberg, Bavaria, Austria and Hungary, while on the other hand various tributaries both north and south, which formed serious obstacles to the march of armies, have become lines of separation between different states. Thus Hungary is separated from Austria by the rivers March and Leitha; the river Enns, for a considerable period the extreme western boundary of the Magyar kingdom, still separates Upper and Lower Austria; the Inn and the Salzach divide Austria from Bavaria, and farther west the Iller separates Bavaria from Württemberg.

The path of this powerful river is filled with historical and political significance. For a long time, it marked the boundary of the Roman Empire; near Eining (above Regensburg) was the ancient Abusina, which served as the main Roman outpost against the northern tribes for nearly five centuries. Remnants of Trajan’s wall can still be seen between that point and Wiesbaden, while another set of fortifications named after the same emperor can be found in the Dobrudja region between Cernavoda (on the lower Danube) and Constanța. Along the way, there are still many impressive Roman ruins, such as Trajan’s road, an incredible structure on the right bank of the river in the rocky Kazan gorge (which separates the Balkans to the south from the Carpathians to the north), where a contemporary commemorative tablet remains clearly visible. At Turnu Severin, just below the end of this well-known gorge, lie the remains of a sturdy stone bridge built by the same emperor during his campaigns in Dacia. However, since Roman times, the central Danube has never served as a state boundary; instead, it became a route taken by waves of invading tribes—the Huns, Avars, Slavs, Magyars, and Turks—while the Franks under Charlemagne, the Bavarians, and the Crusaders all marched eastwards. In more recent history, its banks witnessed many bloody battles during the Napoleonic Wars. Even more recently, it has become a major trade route for central Europe. J. G. Kohl noted in Austria and the Danube (London, 1844), along with others, that because the Danube has continuously been used by migratory hostile tribes as a passage, it does not serve as a boundary between two states from Orșova upwards, allowing it to flow through Württemberg, Bavaria, Austria, and Hungary. Conversely, various tributaries to the north and south that posed serious obstacles to military movements have created separations between different states. For example, Hungary is bordered by Austria by the rivers March and Leitha; the Enns river, which was for a long time the westernmost border of the Magyar kingdom, continues to separate Upper and Lower Austria; the Inn and the Salzach rivers divide Austria from Bavaria, and further west the Iller separates Bavaria from Württemberg.

The Danube after leaving Donaueschingen flows south-east in the direction of Lake Constance, and below Immendingen a considerable quantity of its waters escapes through subterranean fissures to the river Ach in the Rhine Course. basin. At Gutmadingen it turns to the north-east, which general direction, although with many windings, it maintains as far as Linz. At Tuttlingen it contracts and the hills crowd close to the banks, while ruins of castles crown almost every possible summit. The scenery is wild and beautiful until the river passes Sigmaringen. At Ulm, where the river leaves Württemberg and enters Bavaria, it is joined by a large tributary, the Iller, and from this point becomes navigable downstream for specially constructed boats carrying 100 tons of merchandise. It is here some 78 yds. in breadth, with an average depth of 3 ft. 6 in. Continuing its north-easterly course it passes through Bavaria, gradually widening its channel first at Steppberg, then at Ingolstadt, but finally narrowing again until it reaches Regensburg (height 949 ft.). At this point it changes its direction to the south-east, and passing along the southern slopes of the Bavarian Forest enters Austria at Passau (height 800 ft.). In its passage through Bavaria it receives several important affluents on both banks, notably on the right the Alpine rivers Lech, Isar and Inn, the last of which at the junction near Passau exceeds in volume the waters of the Danube.

The Danube, after leaving Donaueschingen, flows southeast toward Lake Constance. Below Immendingen, a significant portion of its waters seeps through underground cracks into the Ach River, part of the Rhine basin. At Gutmadingen, it shifts to the northeast, a direction it generally follows, with many twists and turns, all the way to Linz. At Tuttlingen, the river narrows, and the hills press closely to its banks, while ruins of castles sit atop nearly every peak. The scenery is wild and beautiful until the river reaches Sigmaringen. At Ulm, where the river exits Württemberg and enters Bavaria, it merges with a large tributary, the Iller. From this point, it becomes navigable downstream for specially designed boats that can carry 100 tons of goods. Here, it measures about 78 yards wide, with an average depth of 3 feet 6 inches. Continuing its northeast course, it traverses Bavaria, widening its channel first at Steppberg, then at Ingolstadt, before narrowing again until it reaches Regensburg (elevation 949 ft.). At this point, it shifts direction to the southeast and, following the southern slopes of the Bavarian Forest, enters Austria at Passau (elevation 800 ft.). During its flow through Bavaria, it collects several significant tributaries on both sides, particularly on the right, where it receives the Alpine rivers Lech, Isar, and Inn—the latter of which, at its confluence near Passau, has a greater volume than the Danube itself.

From Passau the Danube flows through Austria for a distance of 233 m. Closed in by mountains it flows past Linz in an unbroken stream—below, it expands and divides into many arms until it reaches the famous whirlpool near Grein where its waters unite and flow on in one channel for 40 m., through mountains and narrow passes. Beyond Krems it again divides, forming arms and islands beyond Vienna. The Danube between Linz and Vienna is renowned not only for its picturesque beauty but for the numerous medieval and modern buildings of historical and archaeological interest which crown its banks. The splendid Benedictine monastery of Melk and the ruins of Dürrenstein, the prison of Richard Cœur de Lion, are among the most interesting.

From Passau, the Danube flows through Austria for 233 miles. Surrounded by mountains, it travels past Linz in a continuous stream—downstream, it widens and splits into several branches until it reaches the famous whirlpool near Grein, where its waters come together and flow in a single channel for 40 miles, through mountains and narrow passes. Beyond Krems, it splits again, creating branches and islands beyond Vienna. The Danube between Linz and Vienna is famous not only for its stunning beauty but also for the many medieval and modern buildings of historical and archaeological significance that line its banks. The impressive Benedictine monastery of Melk and the ruins of Dürrenstein, where Richard the Lionheart was imprisoned, are among the most notable attractions.

After passing Vienna and the Marchfeld, the Danube (here 316 yds. wide and 429 ft. above sea-level) passes through a defile formed by the lower spurs of the Alps and the Carpathians and enters Hungary at the ruined castle of Theben a little above Pressburg, the old Magyar capital, after leaving which the river passes through the Hungarian plains, receiving several affluents on both sides. It divides into three channels, forming several islands. After passing the fortress of Komárom it loses its easterly course at Vácz (Waitzen), and flows nearly due south for 230 m. down to its junction with the Drave (81 ft. above sea-level), passing in its course Budapest, the capital of Hungary, and farther on Mohács. Below Mohács the Franz Josef canal connects the Danube with the Theiss. After its junction with the Save the Danube follows a south-easterly direction for 200 m. until it is joined on the right bank of the Drave at Belgrade, above which it receives on the left bank the Theiss or Tisz., the largest of its Hungarian affluents. From Belgrade the Danube separates Hungary from Servia. It flows eastward until it has passed through the stupendous Kazan defile, in which its waters (at Semlin 1700 yds. wide and 40 ft. deep) are hemmed in by precipitous rocks to a width of only 162 yds., with a depth of 150 ft. and a tremendous current. Emerging, above Orsova, at a height of 42 ft. above sea-level, it opens to nearly a mile in width and, turning south-eastwards, is again narrowed by its last defile, the Iron Gates, where it passes over the Prigrada rock. The course of the river through Hungary, from Pressburg to Orsova, is some 600 m.

After passing Vienna and the Marchfeld, the Danube (here 316 yards wide and 429 feet above sea level) flows through a narrow passage formed by the lower slopes of the Alps and the Carpathians before entering Hungary at the ruins of Theben, a bit above Pressburg, the old Magyar capital. After leaving Pressburg, the river moves through the Hungarian plains, picking up several tributaries on both sides. It splits into three channels, creating several islands. After passing the fortress of Komárom, it changes direction from east to south at Vácz (Waitzen) and flows nearly due south for 230 miles until it joins the Drave (81 feet above sea level), passing Budapest, the capital of Hungary, and further along, Mohács. Below Mohács, the Franz Josef canal connects the Danube with the Theiss. After it meets the Save, the Danube takes a southeast direction for 200 miles until it merges on the right bank of the Drave at Belgrade, where it also receives the Theiss or Tisz. on the left bank, the largest of its Hungarian tributaries. From Belgrade, the Danube separates Hungary from Serbia. It flows east until it passes through the impressive Kazan defile, where its waters (at Semlin 1,700 yards wide and 40 feet deep) are squeezed between steep cliffs down to just 162 yards wide, with a depth of 150 feet and a powerful current. Emerging above Orsova, at a height of 42 feet above sea level, it widens to nearly a mile and, turning southeast, narrows again at its final defile, the Iron Gates, where it flows over the Prigrada rock. The river's course through Hungary, from Pressburg to Orsova, is about 600 miles.

The river now flows south, separating Servia from Rumania down to its junction with the Timok, after which as far as Silistria, a distance of 284 m., it separates Rumania from Bulgaria. The north bank is mostly flat and marshy, whereas the Bulgarian bank is almost continuously crowned by low heights on which are built the considerable towns of Vidin (Widdin), Lom Palanka, Rustchuk and Silistria, all memorable names in Turko-Russian wars. From Silistria the river flows through Rumanian territory and after passing Cernavoda, where it is crossed by a modern railway bridge, it reaches (left bank) the important commercial ports of Braila and Galatz. A few miles east of Galatz the Pruth enters on the left bank, which is thenceforward Russian territory. The Danube flows in a single channel from Galatz for 30 m. to the Ismail Chatal (or fork), where it breaks up into the several branches of the delta. The Kilia branch from this point flows to the north-east past the towns of Ismail and Kilia, and 17 m. below the latter breaks up into another delta discharging by seven channels into the Black Sea. The Tulcea branch flows south-east from the Ismail Chatal, and 7 m. below the town of Tulcea separates into two branches. The St George’s branch, holding a general, though winding, course to the south-east, discharges by two channels into the sea; and the Sulina branch, taking an easterly direction, emerges into the Black Sea 20 m. south of the Ochakov mouth of the Kilia, and 20 m. north of the Kedrilles mouth of the St George.

The river now flows south, separating Serbia from Romania down to its junction with the Timok, after which it continues for 284 miles, separating Romania from Bulgaria. The northern bank is mostly flat and marshy, while the Bulgarian side is lined with low hills that are home to significant towns like Vidin (Widdin), Lom Palanka, Ruse, and Silistra, all of which have notable histories from the Turko-Russian wars. From Silistra, the river flows through Romanian territory and, after passing Cernavoda, where a modern railway bridge crosses it, it reaches the important commercial ports of Braila and Galati on the left bank. A few miles east of Galati, the Pruth River enters on the left bank, marking the beginning of Russian territory. The Danube continues in a single channel from Galati for 30 miles to Ismail Chatal (or fork), where it divides into several branches of the delta. The Kilia branch from this point flows northeast past the towns of Ismail and Kilia, and 17 miles downstream from Kilia, it splits into another delta that flows through seven channels into the Black Sea. The Tulcea branch flows southeast from Ismail Chatal, and 7 miles below the town of Tulcea, it divides into two branches. The St. George’s branch generally winds its way southeast, discharging into the sea through two channels; the Sulina branch, heading east, flows into the Black Sea 20 miles south of the Kilia mouth near Ochakov, and 20 miles north of the St. George's mouth at Kedrilles.

In 1857 the proportion of discharge by the three branches of the Danube was Sulina 7%, St George’s 30% and Kilia 63%; but in 1905 the relative proportions had altered to Sulina 9%, St George’s 24% and Kilia 67%. The average outflow by the three mouths combined is 236,432 cub. ft. per second. The delta enclosed between the Kilia and St George’s branches, about 1000 sq. m. in area, mainly consists of one large marsh covered with reeds, and intersected by channels, relieved in places by isolated elevations covered with oak, beech and willows, many of them marking the ancient coast-line. On the eastern side of the Kilia delta the coast-line is constantly advancing and the sea becoming shallower, owing to the enormous amount of solid deposits brought down by the river. In time of ordinary flood the Kilia branch with its numerous mouths pours into the sea some 3000 cub. ft. of sand and mud per minute. Its effects are felt as far south as Sulina, and tend to necessitate the farther extension into the sea of the guiding piers of that port.

In 1857, the discharge proportions from the three branches of the Danube were Sulina at 7%, St. George’s at 30%, and Kilia at 63%. By 1905, these proportions changed to Sulina at 9%, St. George’s at 24%, and Kilia at 67%. The average combined outflow from all three mouths is 236,432 cubic feet per second. The delta between the Kilia and St. George’s branches covers about 1000 square miles and mainly consists of a large marsh filled with reeds, intersected by channels, with some isolated elevations covered in oak, beech, and willows, many of which mark the ancient coastline. On the eastern side of the Kilia delta, the coastline is constantly advancing, and the sea is becoming shallower due to the large volume of solid deposits brought down by the river. During typical flood times, the Kilia branch, with its numerous mouths, releases around 3000 cubic feet of sand and mud per minute into the sea. Its effects are felt as far south as Sulina and require the guiding piers of that port to extend further into the sea.

In the course of the 19th century, more especially during its latter half, much was done to render the Danube more available as a means of communication. In 1816 Austria and Bavaria made arrangements for the common utilization Navigation. of the upper portion of the river, and since then both governments have been liberal in expenditure on its improvement. In 1844 the Ludwigs Canal was constructed by King Louis of Bavaria. It is 110 m. in length and 7 ft. in depth, and connects the Danube at Kelheim (half way between Ulm and Passau) with the Rhine at Mainz by means of the rivers Altmühl, Regnitz and 821 Main. Various other projects exist, one for the connexion of the Danube (near Vienna) with the river Oder at Oderberg, another for a canal from the Danube to the Moldau at Budweis, 125 m. in length, which owing to the regularization of the Moldau is the last uncompleted link of a navigable channel 1875 m. in length between Sulina and Hamburg at the mouths of the Danube and the Elbe respectively. There also exist other schemes for joining the Danube with the rivers Neckar and Theiss, and also for connecting the Oder Canal with the Vistula and the Dniester. Between Ulm and Vienna, a distance of 629 m., works of rectification have been numerous and have greatly improved the navigability of the river. The draining of the Donau-moos between Neuburg and Ingolstadt, commenced in 1791, was successfully completed about 1835; and in 1853 the removal of the rocks which obstructed the river below Grein was finally achieved; while at Vienna itself the whole mass of the Danube was conducted nearer the town for a distance of nearly 2 m. through an artificial channel 10 m. in length and 330 yds. in width, with a depth of about 12 ft., and at a cost with subsidiary works of over three millions sterling. The work, begun in 1866, involved the removal of 12,000,000 cub. metres of sand and gravel, and proved a great success, not only amply realizing its principal object, the protection of Vienna from disastrous inundations, but also improving the navigability of the river in that portion of its course. The Hungarian government also, throughout the latter half of the 19th century, expended vast sums at Budapest for the improvement of navigation and the protection of the town from inundation, and in the regularization of the Danube down to Orsova.

During the 19th century, especially in the second half, a lot was done to make the Danube more accessible for transportation. In 1816, Austria and Bavaria made arrangements to jointly use the upper part of the river, and since then both governments have spent generously on improvements. In 1844, King Louis of Bavaria constructed the Ludwigs Canal, which is 110 meters long and 7 feet deep, connecting the Danube at Kelheim (halfway between Ulm and Passau) with the Rhine at Mainz through the Altmühl, Regnitz, and Main rivers. Various other projects exist, including one to connect the Danube (near Vienna) with the Oder River at Oderberg, and another for a canal from the Danube to the Moldau at Budweis, which is 125 meters long; this is the last unfinished link in a navigable channel 1,875 meters long between Sulina and Hamburg at the mouths of the Danube and the Elbe. There are also other plans for connecting the Danube with the Neckar and Theiss rivers, as well as linking the Oder Canal with the Vistula and Dniester. Between Ulm and Vienna, a distance of 629 meters, many rectification works have been carried out, greatly enhancing the navigability of the river. The draining of the Donau-moos between Neuburg and Ingolstadt, which started in 1791, was successfully finished around 1835. In 1853, the removal of rocks that obstructed the river below Grein was completed, and in Vienna, the entire mass of the Danube was moved closer to the town for nearly 2 miles through an artificial channel that is 10 meters long and 330 yards wide, with a depth of about 12 feet, costing over three million pounds, including subsidiary works. The work, which began in 1866, involved the removal of 12 million cubic meters of sand and gravel and was highly successful, not only achieving its main goal of protecting Vienna from devastating floods but also improving the river's navigability in that section. The Hungarian government also spent large sums in Budapest during the latter half of the 19th century to improve navigation and protect the city from flooding, as well as to regularize the Danube down to Orsova.

In prehistoric times a great part of the plains of Hungary formed a large inland sea, which ultimately burst its bounds, whereupon the Danube forced its way through the Carpathians at the Kazan defile. Much of what then formed the bottom of this sea consisted until modern times of marshes and waste lands lying in the vicinity of its numerous rivers. The problem of draining and utilizing these lands was not the only difficulty to be surmounted by the Hungarian engineers; the requirements of navigation and the necessity in winter of preventing the formation of large ice-fields, such as caused the disastrous floods at Budapest in 1838, had also to be considered. In carrying out these works the Hungarian government between 1867 and 1895 spent seven millions sterling, and a further expenditure of three and a half millions was provided for up to 1907. At Budapest, where the formation of ice-fields at the upper entrance of the two side arms of the Danube—the Promontor on the north, 20 m. in length, and the Soroksar, 35 m. long,—caused the inundation alluded to, the latter branch has been artificially blocked and the whole of the Danube now flows through Budapest in a single channel. For the first section of 60 m. after entering Hungary, the bed of the river, here surcharged with gravel, was constantly changing its course. It has been regularized throughout, the width of the stream varying from 320 to 400 yds. In the second section from Gönyö to Paks, 164 m. in length, the river had a tendency to form islands and sandbanks—its width now varies uniformly from 455 to 487 yds. The third section of 113 m., from Paks to the mouth of the Drave, differed from the others and made innumerable twists and curves. No fewer than seventeen cuttings have been made, reducing the original course of the river by 75 m. The fourth section, 217 m. in length, from the Drave to Old Moldova, resembles in its characteristics the second section and has been similarly treated. Cuttings have also been made where necessary, and the widths of the channel are 487 yds. to the mouth of the Theiss, 650 between that point and the Save, and lower down 760 yds. In the fifth and last section from Old Moldova to Orsova and the Iron Gates the river is enclosed by mountains and rocky banks, and the obstacles to navigation are rocks and whirlpools.

In prehistoric times, a large part of the plains in Hungary was covered by an extensive inland sea, which eventually overflowed. This caused the Danube to carve its way through the Carpathians at the Kazan defile. Much of what was once the bottom of this sea remained marshy and wasteland until modern times, situated near its numerous rivers. The challenge of draining and making use of these lands was not the only issue Hungarian engineers faced; they also had to consider navigation requirements and the need to prevent large ice fields in winter, which had led to the devastating floods in Budapest in 1838. To address these issues, the Hungarian government spent seven million pounds between 1867 and 1895, with an additional three and a half million allocated up to 1907. In Budapest, where ice fields at the upper ends of the two side arms of the Danube—the Promontor, 20 m long, and the Soroksar, 35 m long—caused the mentioned flooding, the Soroksar branch has been artificially blocked, and now the Danube flows through Budapest in a single channel. For the first section of 60 m as it enters Hungary, the riverbed, filled with gravel, frequently changed its path. This has now been regularized, with the stream's width ranging from 320 to 400 yards. In the second section, from Gönyö to Paks, which is 164 m long, the river tended to create islands and sandbanks and now has a consistent width ranging from 455 to 487 yards. The third section, spanning 113 m from Paks to the mouth of the Drave, is different from the others as it twists and turns numerous times. A total of seventeen cuttings have been made, shortening the river’s original course by 75 m. The fourth section, measuring 217 m from the Drave to Old Moldova, shares characteristics with the second section and has undergone similar modifications. Necessary cuttings have also been created, with the channel widths being 487 yards to the mouth of the Theiss, 650 between that point and the Save, and downriver, 760 yards. In the fifth and final section, from Old Moldova to Orsova and the Iron Gates, the river is flanked by mountains and rocky banks, with navigation impeded by rocks and whirlpools.

Article VI. of the treaty of London (1871) authorized the powers which possess the shores of this part of the Danube to come to an understanding with the view of removing these impediments, and to have the right of levying a provisional tax on vessels of every flag which may henceforth benefit thereby until the extinction of the debt contracted for the execution of the works. As the riverain powers could not come to an agreement on the subject, the great powers at the congress of Berlin (1878) entrusted to Austria-Hungary the execution of the works in question. Austria-Hungary subsequently conferred its rights on Hungary, by which country the works were carried out at a cost of about one and a half millions sterling.

Article VI of the Treaty of London (1871) allowed the countries bordering this part of the Danube to work together to remove these obstacles and gave them the right to impose a temporary tax on vessels of any flag that would benefit from this until the debt incurred for the projects was paid off. Since the bordering countries couldn't reach an agreement on this issue, the major powers at the Congress of Berlin (1878) assigned Austria-Hungary to carry out the necessary works. Austria-Hungary later transferred its rights to Hungary, which completed the projects at a cost of about one and a half million pounds.

The principal obstructions between Old Moldova and Turnu Severin were the Stenka Rapids, the Kozla Dojke Rapids, the Greben section and the Iron Gates. At the first named there was a bank of rocks, some of them dry at low water, extending almost across the river (985 yds. wide). The fall of the river bed is small, but the length of the rapid is 1100 yds. The Kozla Dojke, 9 m. below the Stenka Rapids, extend also for 1100 yds., with a fall of 1 in 1000, where two banks of rocks cause a sudden alternation in the direction of the current. The river is here only 170 to 330 yds. in width. Six miles farther on is the Greben section, the most difficult part of the works of improvement. A spur of the Greben mountains runs out below two shoals where the river suddenly narrows to 300 yds. at low water, but presently widens to 1½ m. Seven miles lower down are the Jucz Rapids, where the river-bed has a fall of 1 in 433. At the Iron Gates, 34 m. below the Greben, the Prigrada rocky bank nearly blocked the river at the point where it widens out after leaving the Kazan defile. The general object of the works was to obtain a navigable depth of water at all seasons of 2 metres (6.56 ft.) on that portion of the river above Orsova, and a depth of 3 metres (9.84 ft.) below that town. To effect this at Stenka, Kozla Dojke, Islaz and Tachtalia, channels 66 yds. wide had to be cut in the solid rock to a depth of 6 ft. 6 in. below low water. The point of the Greben spur had to be entirely removed for a distance of 167 yds. back from its original face. Below the Greben point a training wall 7 to 9 ft. high, 10 ft. at top and nearly 4 m. in length, has been built along the Servian shore in order to confine the river in a narrow channel. At Jucz another similar channel had to be cut and a training wall built. At the Iron Gates a channel 80 yds. wide, nearly 2000 yds. in length and 10 ft. deep (in the immediate vicinity of traces of an old Roman canal) had to be cut on the Servian side of the river through solid rock. Training walls have been built on either side of the channel to confine the water so as to raise its level; that on the right bank having a width of 19 ft. 6 in. at top, and serving as a tow-path; that on the left being 13 ft. in width. These training walls are built of stone with flat revetments to protect them against ice. These formidable and expensive works have not altogether realized the expectations that had been formed of them. One most important result, however, has been attained, i.e. vessels can now navigate the Iron Gates at all seasons of the year when the river is not closed by ice, whereas formerly at extreme low water, lasting generally for about three months in the late summer and autumn, through navigation was always at a standstill, and goods had to be landed and transported considerable distances by land. The canal was opened for traffic on the 1st of October 1898. It was designed of sufficient width, as was supposed, for the simultaneous passage of boats in opposite directions; but on account of the great velocity of the current this has been found to be impracticable.

The main obstacles between Old Moldova and Turnu Severin were the Stenka Rapids, Kozla Dojke Rapids, Greben section, and the Iron Gates. At the Stenka Rapids, there was a rocky bank, some of which was exposed at low water, stretching almost across the river (985 yards wide). The drop in the riverbed is small, but the rapid runs for 1100 yards. The Kozla Dojke, 9 meters downstream from the Stenka Rapids, also extends for 1100 yards, with a drop of 1 in 1000, where two banks of rocks create a sudden change in the current's direction. Here, the river is only 170 to 330 yards wide. Six miles further is the Greben section, the toughest part of the improvement project. A ridge from the Greben mountains juts out below two shallows where the river suddenly narrows to 300 yards at low water, then widens to 1.5 meters. Seven miles downstream are the Jucz Rapids, where the riverbed has a drop of 1 in 433. At the Iron Gates, 34 meters below the Greben, the rocky Prigrada bank nearly blocked the river at the point where it widens out after leaving the Kazan defile. The main goal of the works was to achieve a navigable depth of 2 meters (6.56 feet) above Orsova at all times and 3 meters (9.84 feet) below that town. To achieve this at Stenka, Kozla Dojke, Islaz, and Tachtalia, channels 66 yards wide had to be cut into solid rock to a depth of 6 feet 6 inches below low water. The Greben spur had to be completely removed for a distance of 167 yards from its original position. Below the Greben point, a training wall 7 to 9 feet high, 10 feet wide at the top and nearly 4 meters long, has been built along the Serbian shore to confine the river into a narrow channel. At Jucz, another similar channel was cut and a training wall was constructed. At the Iron Gates, a channel 80 yards wide, nearly 2000 yards long and 10 feet deep (near the remains of an old Roman canal) had to be carved out on the Serbian side of the river through solid rock. Training walls have been built on both sides of the channel to raise the water level; the right bank wall is 19 feet 6 inches wide at the top and serves as a tow-path, while the left wall is 13 feet wide. These training walls are made of stone with flat surfaces to protect them from ice. These massive and costly works have not completely met the expectations that were set for them. However, one significant result has been achieved: vessels can now navigate the Iron Gates all year round when the river isn't frozen, whereas previously, during extreme low water, which usually lasted for about three months in late summer and autumn, navigation would stop, forcing goods to be offloaded and transported long distances overland. The canal was opened for traffic on October 1, 1898. It was designed to be wide enough for boats to pass each other in opposite directions, but due to the high current speed, this has turned out to be impractical.

From the Iron Gates down to Braila, which is the highest point to which large sea-going ships ascend the river, there have been no important works of improvement. From Braila to Sulina, a distance of about 100 m., the river falls under European commission of the Danube. the jurisdiction of the European commission of the Danube, an institution of such importance as to merit lengthened notice. It was called into existence under Art. XVI. of the treaty of Paris (1856), and in November of that year a commission was constituted in which Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey were each represented by one delegate “to designate and cause to be executed the works necessary below Isaktcha1 to clear the mouths of the Danube as well as the neighbouring parts of the sea, from 822 the sands and other impediments which obstructed them, in order to put that part of the river and the said parts of the sea in the best possible state for navigation.”

From the Iron Gates down to Braila, which is the highest point where large ocean-going ships can sail up the river, there haven't been any significant improvements. From Braila to Sulina, a distance of about 100 miles, the river is under the jurisdiction of the Danube European Commission. This commission is so important that it deserves more attention. It was established under Article XVI of the Treaty of Paris (1856), and in November of that year, a commission was formed with one delegate each from Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey “to identify and execute the necessary works below Isaktcha1 to clear the mouths of the Danube and the neighboring areas of the sea from 822 sand and other obstacles that blocked them, in order to ensure that part of the river and those areas of the sea are in the best possible condition for navigation.”

In Art. XVIII. of the same treaty it was anticipated that the European commission would have finished the works described within the period of two years, when it was to be dissolved and its powers taken over by a Riverain commission to be established under the same treaty; but this commission has never come into existence. Extended by short periods up to 1871, the powers of the European commission were then prolonged under the treaty of London for twelve years. At the congress of Berlin in 1878 its jurisdiction was extended from Isakcea to Galatz (26 m.), and it was decided that the commission, in which Rumania was henceforward to be represented by a delegate, should exercise its powers in complete independence of the territorial authority. By the treaty of London of 1883 the jurisdiction of the commission was extended from Galatz to Braila and its powers were prolonged for twenty-one years (i.e. till the 24th of April 1904), after which its existence was to continue by tacit prolongation for successive terms of three years unless one of the high contracting powers should propose any modification in its constitution or attributes. It was also decided that the European commission should no longer exercise any effective control over that portion of the Kilia branch of which the two banks belonged to one of the riverain powers (Russia and Rumania), while as regards that portion of it which separated the two countries, control was to be exercised by the Russian and Rumanian delegates on the European commission. Russia was also authorized to levy tolls intended to cover the expenses of any works of improvement that might be undertaken by her. Art. VII. of the same treaty declared that the regulations for navigation, river police, and superintendence drawn up on the 2nd of June 1882 by the European commission, assisted by the delegates of Servia and Bulgaria, should be made applicable to that part of the Danube situated between the Iron Gates and Braila. In consequence of Rumania’s opposition, the proposed Commission Mixte was never formed, and these regulations have never been put in force. As regards the extension of the powers of the European commission to Braila, 11 m. above Galatz, and at the head of the maritime navigation, a tacit understanding has been arrived at, under which questions concerning navigation proper come under the jurisdiction of the commission, while the police of the ports remains in the hands of the Rumanian authorities.

In Article XVIII of the same treaty, it was expected that the European commission would complete the tasks outlined within two years, after which it would be disbanded and its powers transferred to a Riverain commission to be set up under the same treaty; however, this commission has never been established. The European commission's powers were extended in short increments until 1871, and then extended for twelve more years under the Treaty of London. At the Berlin Congress in 1878, its jurisdiction was expanded from Isakcea to Galatz (26 miles), and it was decided that the commission, which Rumania would now be represented in by a delegate, would have its powers exercised independently of the territorial authority. The Treaty of London in 1883 further extended the commission’s jurisdiction from Galatz to Braila and prolonged its powers for twenty-one years (until April 24, 1904), after which its existence would continue by automatic extensions of three years unless one of the high contracting powers suggested changes to its constitution or roles. It was also determined that the European commission would no longer have any real control over the part of the Kilia branch where both banks belonged to one of the riverain powers (Russia and Rumania), while control over the section that separated the two countries would be managed by the Russian and Rumanian delegates on the European commission. Russia was also allowed to impose tolls to cover the costs of any improvements it might undertake. Article VII of the same treaty stated that the navigation regulations, river police, and oversight established on June 2, 1882, by the European commission with the help of representatives from Servia and Bulgaria would apply to that section of the Danube between the Iron Gates and Braila. Due to Rumania's opposition, the proposed Mixed Commission was never created, and these regulations have never been enforced. Regarding the extension of the European commission's powers to Braila, 11 miles above Galatz and at the start of maritime navigation, a tacit agreement has been made in which navigation-related issues fall under the commission's jurisdiction, while port police remains the responsibility of Rumanian authorities.

Sir Charles Hartley, who was chief engineer of the commission from 1856 to 1907,2 in a paper contributed to the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1873 (vol. xxxvi.), gave the following graphic description of the state of the Sulina mouth when the commission entered on its labours in 1856:—

Sir Charles Hartley, who was the chief engineer of the commission from 1856 to 1907, in a paper given to the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1873 (vol. xxxvi.), provided the following vivid description of the condition of the Sulina mouth when the commission started its work in 1856:—

“The entrance to the Sulina branch was a wild open seaboard strewn with wrecks, the hulls and masts of which, sticking out of the submerged sandbanks, gave to mariners the only guide where the deepest channel was to be found. The depth of the channel varied from 7 to 11 ft., and was rarely more than 9 ft.

“The entrance to the Sulina branch was a wild open seaboard littered with wrecks, the hulls and masts of which, protruding from the submerged sandbanks, provided mariners the only guidance on where to find the deepest channel. The depth of the channel ranged from 7 to 11 feet and was seldom more than 9 feet.”

“The site now occupied by wide quays extending several miles in length was then entirely covered with water when the sea rose a few inches above ordinary level, and that even in a perfect calm; the banks of the river near the mouth were only indicated by clusters of wretched hovels built on piles and by narrow patches of sand skirted by tall weeds, the only vegetable product of the vast swamps beyond.

The area now taken up by broad docks stretching several miles was completely submerged back then when the sea rose just a few inches above its usual level, even in completely calm conditions; the riverbanks near the mouth were only marked by groups of shabby shacks built on stilts and by narrow strips of sand lined with tall weeds, the only plants growing from the extensive swamps beyond.

“For some years before the improvements, an average of 2000 vessels of an aggregate capacity of 400,000 tons visited the Danube, and of this number more than three-fourths loaded either the whole or part of their cargoes from lighters in the Sulina roadstead, where, lying off a lee shore, they were frequently exposed to the greatest danger. Shipwrecks were of common occurrence, and occasionally the number of disasters was appalling. One dark winter night in 1855, during a terrific gale, 24 sailing ships and 60 lighters went ashore off the mouth and upwards of 300 persons perished.”

“For several years before the improvements, an average of 2,000 vessels, with a total capacity of 400,000 tons, visited the Danube. Of these, more than three-quarters loaded either all or part of their cargoes from lighters in the Sulina roadstead, where, positioned near a sheltered shore, they were often exposed to extreme danger. Shipwrecks were quite common, and at times, the number of disasters was shocking. One dark winter night in 1855, during a fierce storm, 24 sailing ships and 60 lighters ran aground off the mouth of the river, resulting in over 300 fatalities.”

The state of affairs in the river was not much better than at the Sulina mouth. Of the three arms of the Danube, the Kilia, the Sulina and the St George, the central or Sulina branch, owing to its greater depth of water over the bar, had from time immemorial been the principal waterway for sea-going vessels; its average depth throughout its course, which could not always be counted on, was 8 ft., but it contained numerous shoals where vessels had to lighten, so that cargo had often to be shifted several times in the voyage down the river. It also contained numerous bends and sharp curves, sources of the greatest difficulty to navigation.

The condition of the river wasn’t any better than at the Sulina mouth. Of the three branches of the Danube—the Kilia, the Sulina, and the St. George—the central branch, Sulina, had been the main route for sea-going ships for ages because it was deeper over the bar. Its average depth was about 8 ft., but this couldn’t always be relied on, as there were many shallow spots where ships needed to lighten their loads. This often meant that cargo had to be shifted multiple times during the trip down the river. The river also had many bends and sharp curves, which made navigation quite challenging.

The commission fixed its seat at Galatz. Provisional works of improvement were begun almost immediately at the mouth of the Sulina branch of the Danube, but two years were spent in discussing the relative claims to adoption of the Kilia, the Sulina and the St George’s mouths. Unable to agree, the delegates referred the question to their respective governments, and a technical commission appointed by France, England, Prussia and Sardinia met at Paris and decided unanimously in favour of St George’s; but recommended, instead of the embankment of the natural channel, the formation of an artificial canal 17 ft. in depth closed by sluices at its junction with the river, and reaching the sea at some distance from the natural embouchure. The choice of St George’s made by this commission was adopted at Galatz in December 1858, and six of the seven representatives voted for its canalization; but owing to various political and financial considerations, it was ultimately decided to do nothing more in the meantime than render permanent and effective the provisional works already in progress at the Sulina mouth. These consisted of two piers forming a seaward prolongation of the fluvial channel, begun in 1858 and completed in 1861. The northern pier had a length of 4631 ft., the southern of 3000, and the depth of the water in which they were built varied from 6 to 20 ft. At the commencement of the works the depth of the channel was only 9 ft. but by their completion it had increased to 19 ft. The works designed and constructed by Sir Charles Hartley had in fact proved so successful that nothing more was ever heard of the St George’s project. In 1865 a new lighthouse was erected at the end of the north pier. The value of these early works of the commission is shown by the fact that of 2928 vessels navigating the lower Danube in 1855, 36 were wrecked, while of 2676 in 1865 only 7 were wrecked. In 1871 it was found expedient to lengthen the piers seaward, and in 1876 the south jetty was prolonged, so as to bring its end exactly opposite the lighthouse on the north pier. This resulted in an increase of the depth to 20½ ft., and for fifteen years, from 1879 to 1895, this depth remained constant without the aid of dredging. In 1894, owing to the constantly increasing size of vessels frequenting the Danube, it was found necessary to deepen the entrance still further, and to construct two parallel piers between the main jetties, reducing the breadth of the river to 500 ft., and thereby increasing the scour. There is now a continuous channel 24 ft. in depth, 5200 ft. in length, and 300 ft. in width between the piers, and 600 ft. outside the extremities of the piers, until deep water is reached in the open sea. This depth is only maintained by constant dredging. The engineers of the commission have been equally successful in dealing with the Sulina branch of the river. Its original length of 45 m. from St George’s Chatal to the sea was impeded at the commencement of the improvement works by eleven bends, each with a radius of less than 1000 ft., besides numerous others of somewhat larger radius, and its bed was encumbered by ten shifting shoals, varying from 8 to 13 ft. in depth at low water. By means of a series of training walls, by groynes thrown out from the banks, by revetments of the banks, and by dredging, all done with the view of narrowing the river, a minimum depth of 11 ft. was attained in 1865, and 13 ft. in 1871. In 1880 the needs of commerce and the increased size of steamers frequenting the river necessitated the construction of a new entrance from the St George’s branch. This work, designed in 1857, but unexecuted during a quarter of a century, owing to insufficiency of funds, was completed in 1882; and in 1886, after other comparatively short cuttings had been made to get rid of difficult bends and further to deepen the channel without having to resort to dredgers, the desired minimum depth of 15 ft. was attained. Since that date a series of new cuttings 823 has been made. These have shortened the length of the Sulina canal by 11 nautical m., eliminated all the difficult bends and shoals, and provided an almost straight waterway 34 m. in length from Sulina to St George’s Chatal, with a minimum depth of 20 ft. when the river is at its lowest.

The commission set up its headquarters in Galatz. Work to improve the area started almost immediately at the mouth of the Sulina branch of the Danube, but there were two years spent debating whether to choose the Kilia, Sulina, or St George’s mouths. Since they couldn't reach an agreement, the delegates sent the issue to their governments. A technical commission appointed by France, England, Prussia, and Sardinia met in Paris and unanimously decided on St George’s. However, they recommended creating an artificial canal, 17 ft. deep, with sluices at its point of connection to the river, reaching the sea further away from the natural outlet instead of just building up the natural channel. The commission’s decision to favor St George’s was accepted at Galatz in December 1858, and six out of seven representatives voted for its canalization. But due to various political and financial issues, it was ultimately decided to only make the ongoing provisional works at the Sulina mouth permanent and effective. Those works included two piers extending the river channel seaward, which began in 1858 and were finished in 1861. The northern pier was 4,631 ft. long, while the southern was 3,000 ft., and the water depth where the piers were built ranged from 6 to 20 ft. At the start of the project, the channel depth was only 9 ft, but by completion, it had risen to 19 ft. The works designed and built by Sir Charles Hartley were so successful that the St George’s project was never mentioned again. In 1865, a new lighthouse was built at the end of the north pier. The effectiveness of these early works is highlighted by the fact that of 2,928 vessels navigating the lower Danube in 1855, 36 were wrecked, while of 2,676 in 1865, only 7 were wrecked. In 1871, it was deemed necessary to extend the piers further into the sea, and in 1876, the southern jetty was lengthened so that its end aligned with the lighthouse on the north pier. This led to an increase in depth to 20½ ft., and from 1879 to 1895, this depth remained stable without dredging. In 1894, due to the increasingly larger vessels using the Danube, it became necessary to deepen the entrance further and create two parallel piers between the main jetties, narrowing the river to 500 ft. and increasing the current. There is now a continuous channel 24 ft. deep, 5,200 ft. long, and 300 ft. wide between the piers, and 600 ft. outside the ends of the piers, down until deep water in the open sea. This depth is maintained only through ongoing dredging. The engineers of the commission have also managed effectively with the Sulina branch of the river. Its original length of 45 m. from St George’s Chatal to the sea was obstructed at the start of improvement works by eleven bends, each with a radius of less than 1,000 ft., along with several others of slightly larger radius, and the riverbed was blocked by ten shifting shoals, varying from 8 to 13 ft. deep at low water. Through a series of training walls, groynes from the banks, bank revetments, and dredging, all aimed at narrowing the river, a minimum depth of 11 ft. was reached in 1865 and 13 ft. in 1871. In 1880, the growing needs of commerce and the increasing size of steamers on the river led to the need for a new entrance from the St George’s branch. This project, designed in 1857 but not carried out for 25 years due to lack of funds, was completed in 1882. Then, in 1886, after other shorter cuttings were made to eliminate difficult bends and further deepen the channel without dredging, the desired minimum depth of 15 ft. was achieved. Since then, a series of new cuttings 823 has been completed. These have shortened the Sulina canal by 11 nautical miles, removed all challenging bends and shoals, and created an almost straight waterway 34 m. long from Sulina to St George’s Chatal, with a minimum depth of 20 ft. during the river’s lowest flow.

In the early days of the commission, i.e. from 1857 to 1860, the money spent on the works of improvement, amounting to about £150,000, was advanced as a loan by the then territorial power, Turkey; but in 1860 the commission began to levy taxes on vessels frequenting the river, and since then has repaid its debt to the Turkish government, as well as various loans for short periods, and a larger one of £120,000 guaranteed by the powers, and raised in 1868, mainly through the energy of the British commissioner, Sir John Stokes. This last loan was paid off in 1882 and the commission became free from debt in 1887. It has now an average annual income of about £80,000 derived from taxes paid by ships when3 leaving the river. The normal annual expenditure amounts to about £56,000, while £24,000 is generally allotted to extraordinary works, such as new cuttings, &c. Between 1857 and 1905 a sum of about one and three quarter millions sterling was spent on engineering works, including the construction of quays, lighthouses, workshops and buildings, &c. Sulina from being a collection of mud hovels has developed into a town with 5000 inhabitants; a well-found hospital has been established where all merchant sailors receive gratuitous treatment; lighthouses, quays, floating elevators and an efficient pilot service all combine to make it a first-class port.

In the early days of the commission, from 1857 to 1860, the money spent on improvements, which totaled about £150,000, was loaned by the Turkish government. However, in 1860, the commission started to tax vessels using the river, and since then has repaid its debt to Turkey, along with various short-term loans and a larger one of £120,000 guaranteed by other countries, raised in 1868, largely thanks to the efforts of the British commissioner, Sir John Stokes. This last loan was paid off in 1882, and the commission became debt-free in 1887. It currently has an average annual income of about £80,000 from taxes paid by ships leaving the river. The normal annual expenses are around £56,000, while usually £24,000 is allocated for special projects, like new cuttings, etc. Between 1857 and 1905, about one and a quarter million sterling was spent on engineering projects, including the construction of docks, lighthouses, workshops, and buildings, etc. Sulina has transformed from a collection of mud huts into a town with 5,000 residents; a well-equipped hospital has been established where all merchant seamen receive free treatment; lighthouses, docks, floating elevators, and an effective pilot service all contribute to making it a top-notch port.

The result of all the combined works for the rectification of the Danube is that from Sulina up to Braila the river is navigable for sea-going vessels up to 4000 tons register, from Braila to Turnu Severin it is open for sea-going vessels up to 600 tons, and for flat barges of from 1500 to 2000 tons capacity. From Turnu Severin to Orsova navigation is confined to river steamers, tugs and barges drawing 6 ft. of water. Thence to Vienna the draught is limited to 5 ft., and from Vienna to Regensburg to a somewhat lower figure. Barges of 600 tons register can be towed from the lower Danube to Regensburg. Here petroleum tanks have been constructed for the storage of Rumanian petroleum, the first consignment of which in 1898, conveyed in tank boats, took six weeks on the voyage up from Giurgevo. The principal navigation company on the upper Danube is the Société Impériale et Royale Autrichienne of Vienna, which started operations in 1830. This company also owns the Fünfkirchen mines, producing annually 500,000 tons of coal. The society transports goods and passengers between Galatz and Regensburg. A less important society is the Rumanian State Navigation Company, possessing a large flotilla of tugs and barges, which run to Budapest, where they have established a combined service with the South Danube German Company for the transport of goods from Pest to Regensburg. A Hungarian Navigation Company, subsidized by the state, has also been formed, and the Hungarian railways, the Servian government and private owners own a large number of tugs and barges.

The result of all the combined efforts to fix the Danube is that from Sulina to Braila, the river is navigable for sea-going vessels up to 4,000 tons. From Braila to Turnu Severin, it accommodates sea-going vessels up to 600 tons and flat barges with a capacity of 1,500 to 2,000 tons. From Turnu Severin to Orsova, navigation is limited to river steamers, tugs, and barges that draw 6 feet of water. From there to Vienna, the draft is limited to 5 feet, and from Vienna to Regensburg, it's somewhat lower. Barges with a 600-ton capacity can be towed from the lower Danube to Regensburg. There, petroleum tanks have been built for storing Romanian petroleum, the first shipment of which in 1898, transported in tank boats, took six weeks to reach from Giurgevo. The main navigation company on the upper Danube is the Société Impériale et Royale Autrichienne of Vienna, which started its operations in 1830. This company also owns the Fünfkirchen mines, producing 500,000 tons of coal annually. The company transports goods and passengers between Galatz and Regensburg. A less prominent company is the Romanian State Navigation Company, which has a large fleet of tugs and barges that operate to Budapest, where they have set up a combined service with the South Danube German Company to transport goods from Pest to Regensburg. A Hungarian Navigation Company has also been established with state support, and the Hungarian railways, the Serbian government, and private owners own a significant number of tugs and barges.

But it is the trade of the lower Danube that has principally benefited. Freights from Galatz and Braila to North Sea ports have fallen from 50s. to about 12s. or even 10s. per ton. Sailing ships of 200 tons register have given way to steamers up to 4000 tons register carrying a deadweight of nearly 8000 tons; and good order has succeeded chaos. From 1847 to 1860 an average of 203 British ships entered the Danube averaging 193 tons each; from 1861 to 1889, 486 ships averaging 796 tons; in 1893, 905 vessels of 1,287,762 tons, or 68% of the total traffic, and rather more than two and a half times the total amount of British tonnage visiting the Danube in the fourteen years between 1847 and 1860. The average amount of cereals (principally wheat) annually exported from the Danube during the period 1901-1905 was 13,000,000 quarters, i.e. about five times the average annual exportation during the period 1861-1867. It has been calculated that between 1861 and 1902 the total tonnage of ships frequenting the Danube increased five-fold, while the mean size of individual ships increased ten-fold.

But it's the trade along the lower Danube that has mainly benefited. Freight costs from Galatz and Braila to North Sea ports have dropped from £50 to around £12 or even £10 per ton. Sailing ships with a 200-ton capacity have been replaced by steamers up to 4,000 tons, capable of carrying nearly 8,000 tons; and good order has replaced chaos. From 1847 to 1860, an average of 203 British ships entered the Danube, averaging 193 tons each. From 1861 to 1889, 486 ships averaged 796 tons; in 1893, there were 905 vessels totaling 1,287,762 tons, or 68% of the overall traffic, which is more than two and a half times the total British tonnage that visited the Danube in the fourteen years between 1847 and 1860. The average amount of cereals (mainly wheat) exported annually from the Danube during the period of 1901-1905 was 13,000,000 quarters, which is about five times the average annual exports from 1861-1867. It's been estimated that between 1861 and 1902, the total tonnage of ships traveling the Danube increased five-fold, while the average size of individual ships increased ten-fold.

Bibliography.—Marsiglius, Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus (the Hague, 1726); Schulte, Donaufahrten (1819-1829); Planche, Descent of the Danube (1828); Széchenyi, Über die Donauschiffahrt (1836); A. Müller, Die Donau vom Ursprunge bis zu den Mündungen (1839-1841); J. G. Kohl, Die Donau (Trieste, 1853-1854); G. B. Rennie, Suggestions for the Improvement of the Danube (1856); Sir C. A. Hartley, Description of the Delta of the Danube (1862 and 1874); Mémoire sur le régime administratif établi aux embouchures du Danube (Galatz, 1867); Desjardins, Rhône et Danube, a defence of the canalization scheme (Paris, 1870); Carte du Danube entre Braïla et la mer, published by the European Commission (Leipzig, 1874); Peters, Die Donau und ihr Gebiet, eine geologische Studie (1876); A. F. Heksch, Guide illustré sur le Danube (Vienna, 1883); F. D. Millet, The Danube (New York, 1893); Schweiger-Lerchenfeld, Die Donau als Völkerweg, Schiffahrtsstrasse, und Reiseroute (Vienna, 1895); D. A. Sturza, La Question des Portes de Fer et des cataractes du Danube (Berlin, 1899); A. de Saint Clair, Le Danube: étude de droit international (Paris, 1899); D. A. Sturdza, Recueil de documents relatifs à la liberté de navigation du Danube, pp. 933 (Berlin, 1904); A. Schroth-Ukmar, Donausagen von Passau bis Wien (Vienna, 1904).

References.—Marsiglius, Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus (The Hague, 1726); Schulte, Donaufahrten (1819-1829); Planche, Descent of the Danube (1828); Széchenyi, Über die Donauschiffahrt (1836); A. Müller, Die Donau vom Ursprunge bis zu den Mündungen (1839-1841); J. G. Kohl, Die Donau (Trieste, 1853-1854); G. B. Rennie, Suggestions for the Improvement of the Danube (1856); Sir C. A. Hartley, Description of the Delta of the Danube (1862 and 1874); Mémoire sur le régime administratif établi aux embouchures du Danube (Galatz, 1867); Desjardins, Rhône et Danube, a defense of the canalization scheme (Paris, 1870); Carte du Danube entre Braïla et la mer, published by the European Commission (Leipzig, 1874); Peters, Die Donau und ihr Gebiet, eine geologische Studie (1876); A. F. Heksch, Guide illustré sur le Danube (Vienna, 1883); F. D. Millet, The Danube (New York, 1893); Schweiger-Lerchenfeld, Die Donau als Völkerweg, Schiffahrtsstrasse, und Reiseroute (Vienna, 1895); D. A. Sturza, La Question des Portes de Fer et des cataractes du Danube (Berlin, 1899); A. de Saint Clair, Le Danube: étude de droit international (Paris, 1899); D. A. Sturdza, Recueil de documents relatifs à la liberté de navigation du Danube, pp. 933 (Berlin, 1904); A. Schroth-Ukmar, Donausagen von Passau bis Wien (Vienna, 1904).

(H. Tr.)

1 Isakcea was 66 nautical m. from the sea measured by the Sulina arm of the Danube, 37 m. below Braila and 26 m. below Galatz.

1 Isakcea was 66 nautical miles from the sea measured by the Sulina branch of the Danube, 37 miles below Brăila and 26 miles below Galați.

2 Sir Charles Hartley became consulting engineer in 1872, when he was succeeded as resident engineer by Mr Charles Kühl, C.E., C.M.G. To those two gentlemen is mainly due the conspicuous success of the engineering works.

2 Sir Charles Hartley became a consulting engineer in 1872, when Mr. Charles Kühl, C.E., C.M.G. took over as the resident engineer. The impressive success of the engineering projects is largely credited to these two gentlemen.

3 Ships pay no taxes to the commission on entering the river, but on leaving it every ship of over 1500 tons register pays 1s. 5d. per registered ton if loaded at Galatz or Braila, or 11d. per ton if loaded at Sulina. This includes pilotage and light dues. Smaller vessels pay less and ships of less than 300 tons are exempt.

3 Ships don’t pay any taxes to the commission when they enter the river, but when they leave, every ship over 1500 tons registered has to pay 1s. 5d. per registered ton if loaded at Galatz or Braila, or 11d. per ton if loaded at Sulina. This fee covers pilotage and light dues. Smaller vessels pay less, and ships under 300 tons are exempt.


DANVERS, a township of Essex county, on the coast of Massachusetts, U.S.A., about 19 m. N. by E. of Boston. Pop. (1890) 7454; (1900) 8542, of whom 1873 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 9407. Danvers includes an area of 14 sq. m. of level country diversified by hills. There are several villages or business centres, the largest of which, bearing the same name as the township, is served by the Boston & Maine railway. In the township are a state insane asylum, with accommodation for 1000 patients; St John’s Preparatory College (Roman Catholic), conducted by the Xavierian Brothers; and, in Peabody Park, the Peabody Institute, with a good public library and museum, the gift (1867) of George Peabody. The Danvers historical society has a valuable collection. Although chiefly a residential town, Danvers has various manufactures, the most important of which are leather, boots and shoes, bricks, boxes and electric lamps. The total value of the factory product in 1905 was $2,017,908, of which more than one half was the value of leather. Danvers owns its water-works and its electric lighting and power plant. A part of what is now Danvers was included in the grant made by the court of assistants to Governor John Endecott and the Rev. Samuel Skelton of the Salem church in 1632. Danvers was set off from Salem as a district in 1752 and was incorporated as a township in 1757, but the act of incorporation was disallowed in 1759 by the privy council on the recommendation of the board of trade, in view of George II.’s disapproval of the incorporation of new townships at that time,—hence the significance of the words on the seal of Danvers, “The King Unwilling”; in 1775 the district was again incorporated. Salem Village, a part of the present township, was the centre of the famous witchcraft delusion in 1692. In 1885 South Danvers was set off as a separate township, and in 1868 was named Peabody in honour of George Peabody, who was born and is buried there. In 1857 part of Beverly was annexed to Danvers. Among distinguished natives of Danvers are Samuel Holton (1738-1816), a member (1778-1780 and 1782-1787) of the Continental Congress and (1793-1795) of the Federal Congress; Israel Putnam; Moses Porter (1755-1822), who served through the War of Independence and the War of 1812; and Grenville Mellen Dodge (b. 1831), a prominent railway engineer, who fought in the Union army in the Civil War, reaching the rank of major-general of volunteers, was a Republican member of the national House of Representatives in 1867-1869, and in 1898 president of the commission which investigated the management of the war with Spain.

DANVERS, is a town in Essex County, on the coast of Massachusetts, U.S.A., about 19 miles northeast of Boston. Population: (1890) 7,454; (1900) 8,542, of which 1,873 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 9,407. Danvers covers an area of 14 square miles of flat land with some hills. There are several villages or business centers, the largest of which shares the town's name and is served by the Boston & Maine railway. Within the township are a state mental health facility with space for 1,000 patients; St. John’s Preparatory College (Roman Catholic), run by the Xavierian Brothers; and, in Peabody Park, the Peabody Institute, which includes a well-stocked public library and museum, gifted in 1867 by George Peabody. The Danvers Historical Society has a valuable collection. Although primarily a residential area, Danvers has various manufacturing activities, the most significant of which include leather goods, boots and shoes, bricks, boxes, and electric lamps. The total value of factory products in 1905 was $2,017,908, with more than half from leather. Danvers owns its water supply and its electric lighting and power plant. A portion of what is now Danvers was part of a grant made by the court of assistants to Governor John Endecott and Rev. Samuel Skelton of the Salem church in 1632. Danvers separated from Salem as a district in 1752 and was formally incorporated as a township in 1757, but the incorporation was rejected in 1759 by the Privy Council following advice from the Board of Trade due to King George II's disapproval of new townships at that time—hence the phrase on the Danvers seal, “The King Unwilling.” In 1775, the district was re-incorporated. Salem Village, a part of the current town, was the center of the well-known witch trials in 1692. In 1885, South Danvers became a separate town and was renamed Peabody in 1868 to honor George Peabody, who was born and buried there. In 1857, part of Beverly was annexed to Danvers. Distinguished residents from Danvers include Samuel Holton (1738-1816), who served as a member of the Continental Congress (1778-1780 and 1782-1787) and the Federal Congress (1793-1795); Israel Putnam; Moses Porter (1755-1822), who served in both the War of Independence and the War of 1812; and Grenville Mellen Dodge (b. 1831), a notable railway engineer who fought for the Union in the Civil War, achieving the rank of major-general of volunteers, served as a Republican in the national House of Representatives from 1867-1869, and in 1898 was the president of the commission that investigated the management of the war with Spain.

See J. W. Hanson, History of the Town of Danvers (Danvers, 1848); Ezra D. Hines, Historic Danvers (Danvers, 1894) and Historical Address (Boston, 1907), in celebration of the 150th anniversary of the first incorporation; and A. P. White, “History of Danvers” in History of Essex County, Mass. (Philadelphia, 1888).

See J. W. Hanson, History of the Town of Danvers (Danvers, 1848); Ezra D. Hines, Historic Danvers (Danvers, 1894) and Historical Address (Boston, 1907), celebrating the 150th anniversary of the first incorporation; and A. P. White, “History of Danvers” in History of Essex County, Mass. (Philadelphia, 1888).


DANVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Vermilion county, Illinois, U.S.A., in the E. part of the state, near the Big Vermilion river, 120 m. S. of Chicago. Pop. (1890) 11,491; (1900) 16,354, 824 of whom 1435 were foreign-born; (1910) 27,871. Danville is served by the Chicago & Eastern Illinois (whose shops are here), the Wabash, the Chicago, Indiana & Southern, and the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St Louis railways, and by three interurban lines. There are three public parks (Lincoln, Douglas and Ellsworth), a Carnegie library (1883), and a national home for disabled volunteer soldiers (opened in 1898). Situated in the vicinity of an extensive coalfield (the Grape Creek district), Danville has a large trade in coal; it has also several manufacturing establishments engaged principally in the construction and repair of railway cars, and in the manufacture of bricks, foundry products, glass, carriages, flour and hominy. The value of the factory products of the city in 1905 was $3,304,120, an increase of 72.7% since 1900. Danville was first settled about 1830 and was first incorporated in 1839; in 1874 it was chartered as a city under the general state law of 1872 for the incorporation of municipalities. It annexed Vermilion Heights in 1905, South Danville (pop. in 1900, 898) in 1906, and Germantown (pop. in 1900, 1782) and Roselawn in 1907.

DANVILLE, is a city and the county seat of Vermilion County, Illinois, U.S.A., located in the eastern part of the state near the Big Vermilion River, 120 miles south of Chicago. Population: (1890) 11,491; (1900) 16,354, 824 of whom 1,435 were foreign-born; (1910) 27,871. Danville is served by the Chicago & Eastern Illinois (which has its shops here), the Wabash, the Chicago, Indiana & Southern, and the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis railways, as well as three interurban lines. The city features three public parks (Lincoln, Douglas, and Ellsworth), a Carnegie library (established in 1883), and a national home for disabled volunteer soldiers (opened in 1898). Located near a large coalfield (the Grape Creek district), Danville has a significant coal trade, along with several manufacturing operations primarily focused on building and repairing railway cars, and producing bricks, foundry products, glass, carriages, flour, and hominy. The value of the city’s factory products in 1905 was $3,304,120, a 72.7% increase since 1900. Danville was first settled around 1830 and was incorporated in 1839; it was chartered as a city in 1874 under the general state law of 1872 for the incorporation of municipalities. The city annexed Vermilion Heights in 1905, South Danville (population in 1900, 898) in 1906, and Germantown (population in 1900, 1,782) and Roselawn in 1907.


DANVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Boyle county, Kentucky, U.S.A., 113 m. S. by W. of Cincinnati. Pop. (1890) 3766; (1900) 4285 (1913 negroes) (1910) 5420. The city is served by the Southern and the Cincinnati Southern railways, the latter connecting at Junction City (4 m. S.) with the Louisville & Nashville railway. Danville is an attractive city, situated in the S.E. part of the fertile “Blue Grass region” of Kentucky. In McDowell Park there is a monument to the memory of Dr Ephraim McDowell (1771-1830), who after 1795 lived in Danville, and is famous for having performed in 1809 the first entirely successful operation for the removal of an ovarian tumour. Danville is the seat of several educational institutions, the most important of which is the Central University of Kentucky (Presbyterian), founded in 1901 by the consolidation of Centre College (opened at Danville in 1823), and the Central University (opened at Richmond, Ky., in 1874). The law school also is in Danville. The classical, scientific and literary department of the present university is still known as Centre College; the medical and dental departments are in Louisville, and the university maintains a preparatory school, the Centre College academy, at Danville. In 1908 the university had 87 instructors and 696 students. Other institutions at Danville are Caldwell College for women (1860; Presbyterian), and the Kentucky state institution for deaf mutes (1823). The Transylvania seminary was opened here in 1785, but four years later was removed to Lexington (q.v.), and a Presbyterian theological seminary was founded here in 1853, but was merged with the Louisville theological seminary (known after 1902 as the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky) in 1901. The municipality owns and operates its water-works and power plant. From its first settlement in 1781 until the admission of Kentucky into the Union in 1792 Danville was an important political centre. There was an influential political club here from 1786 to 1790, and here, too, sat the several conventions—nine in all—which asked for a separation from Virginia, discussed the proposed conditions of separation from that commonwealth, framed the first state constitution, and chose Frankfort as the capital. Danville was incorporated in 1789. It was the birthplace of James G. Birney and of Theodore O’Hara.

DANVILLE, is a city and the county seat of Boyle County, Kentucky, U.S.A., located 113 miles southwest of Cincinnati. Population (1890) was 3,766; (1900) 4,285; (1910) 5,420, including African Americans. The city is served by the Southern and Cincinnati Southern railways, the latter connecting at Junction City (4 miles south) with the Louisville & Nashville railway. Danville is an attractive city located in the southeastern part of the fertile "Blue Grass region" of Kentucky. In McDowell Park, there is a monument dedicated to Dr. Ephraim McDowell (1771-1830), who lived in Danville after 1795 and is known for performing the first successful operation to remove an ovarian tumor in 1809. Danville is home to several educational institutions, the most significant being the Central University of Kentucky (Presbyterian), which was founded in 1901 by merging Centre College (established in Danville in 1823) and Central University (opened in Richmond, Ky., in 1874). The law school is also located in Danville. The classical, scientific, and literary department of the current university is still referred to as Centre College; the medical and dental departments are in Louisville, and the university runs a preparatory school, the Centre College Academy, in Danville. In 1908, the university had 87 instructors and 696 students. Other institutions in Danville include Caldwell College for women (1860; Presbyterian) and the Kentucky state institution for deaf mutes (1823). The Transylvania seminary was established here in 1785 but moved to Lexington four years later, and a Presbyterian theological seminary was founded here in 1853 but merged with the Louisville theological seminary (renamed the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky in 1902) in 1901. The municipality owns and operates its waterworks and power plant. From its settlement in 1781 until Kentucky's admission to the Union in 1792, Danville was a significant political center. An influential political club was active here from 1786 to 1790, and several conventions—nine in total—met here to discuss separating from Virginia, draft the first state constitution, and select Frankfort as the capital. Danville was incorporated in 1789 and was the birthplace of James G. Birney and Theodore O'Hara.


DANVILLE, a borough and the county-seat of Montour county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., on the N. branch of the Susquehanna river, about 65 m. N. by E. of Harrisburg. Pop. (1890) 7998; (1900) 8042, of whom 771 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 7517. It is served by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, and the Philadelphia & Reading railways, and by electric railway to Bloomsburg. The borough is built on an elevated bank of the river at the base of Montour Ridge, where the narrow valley appears to be shut in on every side by hills; the river is spanned by a steel bridge, built in 1905. Iron, coal and limestone abound in the vicinity, and the borough has large manufactories of stoves and furnaces, and of iron and steel, in one of which in 1845 a “T”-rail, probably the first in America, was rolled. It is the seat of a state hospital for the insane (established in 1868). The water-works and electric light plant are owned and operated by the municipality. A settlement was founded here about 1776 by Captain William Montgomery and his son Daniel; and a town was laid out in 1792 and called Dan’s Town until the present name was adopted a few years later. Growth was slow until the discovery of iron ore on Montour Ridge, followed in 1832 by the completion of the N. branch of the Pennsylvania Canal, which runs through the centre of the borough. Danville was incorporated in 1849.

DANVILLE, is a borough and the county seat of Montour County, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., located on the north branch of the Susquehanna River, about 65 miles northeast of Harrisburg. The population was 7,998 in 1890; 8,042 in 1900, including 771 foreign-born residents; and 7,517 according to the 1910 census. It has access to the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, and the Philadelphia & Reading railways, as well as an electric railway to Bloomsburg. The borough is built on a high bank of the river at the foot of Montour Ridge, where the narrow valley seems to be surrounded by hills; a steel bridge, built in 1905, crosses the river. The area is rich in iron, coal, and limestone, and the borough has large factories producing stoves, furnaces, and iron and steel, one of which rolled a “T”-rail in 1845, likely the first in America. It is home to a state hospital for the mentally ill (established in 1868). The municipal government owns and operates the waterworks and electric light plant. A settlement was established here around 1776 by Captain William Montgomery and his son Daniel; a town was laid out in 1792, originally called Dan’s Town, until it adopted its current name a few years later. Growth was slow until iron ore was discovered on Montour Ridge, which was followed by the completion of the north branch of the Pennsylvania Canal in 1832, running through the center of the borough. Danville was incorporated in 1849.


DANVILLE, a city in Pittsylvania county, Virginia, U.S.A., on the Dan river about 140 m. (by rail) S.W. of Richmond. Pop. (1890) 10,305; (1900) 16,520 (6515 negroes); (1910) 19,020. It is on the main line of the Southern railway, and is the terminus of branches to Richmond and Norfolk; it is also served by the Danville & Western railway, a road (75 m. long) connecting with Stuart, Va., and controlled by the Southern, though operated independently. The city is built on high ground above the river. It has a city hall, a general hospital, a Masonic temple, and a number of educational institutions, including the Roanoke College (1860; Baptist), for young women; the Randolph-Macon Institute (1897; Methodist Episcopal, South), for girls; and a commercial college. The river furnishes valuable water-power, which is utilized by the city’s manufactories (value of product in 1900, third in rank in the state, $8,103,484, of which only $3,693,792 was “factory” product; in 1905 the “factory” product was valued at $4,774,818), including cotton mills—in 1905 Danville ranked first among the cities of the state in the value of cotton goods produced—a number of tobacco factories, furniture and overall factories, and flour and knitting mills. The city is a jobbing centre and wholesale market for a considerable area in southern Virginia and northern North Carolina, and is probably the largest loose-leaf tobacco market in the country, selling about 40,000,000 ℔ annually. In the industrial suburb of Schoolfield, which in 1908 had a population of about 3000, there is a large textile mill. The city owns and operates its water-supply system (with an excellent filtration plant installed in 1904) and its gas and electric lighting plants. Danville was settled about 1770, was first incorporated as a town in 1792, and became a city in 1833; it is politically independent of Pittsylvania county. To Danville, after the evacuation of Richmond on the 2nd of April 1865, the archives of the Confederacy were carried, and here President Jefferson Davis paused for a few days in his flight southward.

DANVILLE, is a city in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, U.S.A., located on the Dan River about 140 miles (by rail) southwest of Richmond. Population: (1890) 10,305; (1900) 16,520 (6,515 African Americans); (1910) 19,020. It lies on the main line of the Southern Railway and is the terminus of branches to Richmond and Norfolk. It's also served by the Danville & Western Railway, a 75-mile road that connects with Stuart, Virginia, and is controlled by the Southern yet operated independently. The city sits on elevated ground above the river. It has a city hall, a general hospital, a Masonic temple, and several educational institutions, including Roanoke College (1860; Baptist), for young women; the Randolph-Macon Institute (1897; Methodist Episcopal, South), for girls; and a commercial college. The river provides valuable water power, which is used by the city's manufacturing sector (the value of products in 1900 ranked third in the state at $8,103,484, of which only $3,693,792 was “factory” product; in 1905, the “factory” product was valued at $4,774,818), including cotton mills—in 1905, Danville ranked first among the cities in the state for the value of cotton goods produced—a number of tobacco factories, furniture and overall factories, and flour and knitting mills. The city is a jobbing center and wholesale market for a significant area in southern Virginia and northern North Carolina, and it is likely the largest loose-leaf tobacco market in the country, selling about 40,000,000 pounds annually. In the industrial suburb of Schoolfield, which had around 3,000 residents in 1908, there is a large textile mill. The city owns and operates its water supply system (with an excellent filtration plant installed in 1904) and its gas and electric lighting plants. Danville was settled around 1770, was first incorporated as a town in 1792, and became a city in 1833; it is politically independent of Pittsylvania County. After the evacuation of Richmond on April 2, 1865, the archives of the Confederacy were moved to Danville, where President Jefferson Davis paused for a few days during his flight southward.


DANZIG, or Dantsic (Polish Gdansk), a strong maritime fortress and seaport of Germany, capital of the province of West Prussia, on the left bank of the western arm of the Vistula, 4 m. S. of its entrance, at Neufahrwasser, into the Baltic, 253 m. N.E. from Berlin by rail. Pop. (1885) 114,805; (1905) 159,088. The city is traversed by two branches of the Mottlau, a small tributary of the Vistula, dredged to a depth of 15 ft., thus enabling large vessels to reach the wharves of the inner town. The strong fortifications which, with ramparts, bastions and wet ditches, formerly entirely surrounded the city, were removed on the north and west sides in 1895-1896, the trenches filled in, and the area thus freed laid out on a spacious plan. One portion, acquired by the municipality, has been turned into promenades and gardens, the Steffens Park, outside the Olivaer Tor, fifty acres in extent, occupying the north-western corner. The remainder of the massive defences remain, with twenty bastions, in the hands of the military authorities; the works for laying the surrounding country under water on the eastern side have been modernized, and the western side defended by a cordon of forts crowning the hills and extending down to the port of Neufahrwasser.

Danzig, or Dantsic (Polish Gdansk), is a strong maritime fortress and seaport in Germany, the capital of West Prussia, located on the left bank of the western arm of the Vistula River, 4 miles south of its entrance at Neufahrwasser into the Baltic Sea, and 253 miles northeast from Berlin by rail. Population: (1885) 114,805; (1905) 159,088. The city is crossed by two branches of the Mottlau, a small tributary of the Vistula, which has been dredged to a depth of 15 feet, allowing large vessels to access the wharves in the inner town. The robust fortifications that once completely surrounded the city with ramparts, bastions, and wet ditches were removed on the north and west sides in 1895-1896, the trenches filled in, and the freed area was redesigned on a spacious plan. One section, acquired by the municipality, has been transformed into promenades and gardens, including the Steffens Park outside the Olivaer Tor, which covers fifty acres in the north-western corner. The remaining massive defenses, including twenty bastions, are maintained by the military authorities; the structures for flooding the surrounding region on the eastern side have been modernized, and the western side is defended by a line of forts on the hills extending down to the port of Neufahrwasser.

Danzig almost alone of larger German cities still preserves its picturesque medieval aspect. The grand old patrician houses of the days of its Hanseatic glory, with their lofty and often elaborately ornamented gables and their balconied windows, are the delight of the visitor to the town. Only one ancient feature is rapidly disappearing—owing to the exigencies of street traffic—the stone terraces close to the entrance doors and abutting on the street. Of its old gates the Hohe Tor, modelled after a Roman triumphal arch, is a remarkable monumental erection of the 16th 825 century. From it runs the Lange Gasse, the main street, to the Lange Markt. On this square stands the Artus- or Junker-hof (the merchant princes of the middle ages were in Germany styled Junker, squire), containing a hall richly decorated with wood carving and pictures, once used as a banqueting-room and now serving as the exchange. There are twelve Protestant and seven Roman Catholic churches and two synagogues. Of these the most important is St Mary’s, begun in 1343 and completed in 1503, one of the largest Protestant churches in existence. It possesses a famous painting of the Last Judgment, formerly attributed to Jan van Eyck, but probably by Memlinc. Among other ancient buildings of note are the beautiful Gothic town hall, surmounted by a graceful spire, the armoury (Zeughaus) and the Franciscan monastery, restored in 1871, and now housing the municipal picture gallery and a collection of antiquities. Of modern structures, the government offices, the house of the provincial diet, the post office and the palace of the commander of the 17th army corps, which has its headquarters in Danzig, are the most noteworthy.

Danzig, almost uniquely among larger German cities, still maintains its charming medieval look. The grand old patrician houses from its Hanseatic glory days, with their tall and often intricately decorated gables and balcony windows, delight visitors to the town. However, one ancient feature is quickly disappearing—due to the demands of street traffic—the stone terraces near entrance doors that face the street. Among its old gates, the Hohe Tor, modeled after a Roman triumphal arch, stands out as a remarkable monument from the 16th century. From there, Lange Gasse, the main street, extends to Lange Markt. On this square is the Artus- or Junker-hof (the merchant princes of the Middle Ages were known as Junker, or squire), which contains a hall richly decorated with wood carvings and paintings, once used for banquets and now serves as the exchange. There are twelve Protestant and seven Roman Catholic churches along with two synagogues. The most significant among them is St. Mary’s, which was started in 1343 and finished in 1503, making it one of the largest Protestant churches in existence. It features a famous painting of the Last Judgment, which was once attributed to Jan van Eyck but is likely by Memlinc. Other notable ancient buildings include the beautiful Gothic town hall, topped with a graceful spire, the armory (Zeughaus), and the Franciscan monastery, which was restored in 1871 and now houses the municipal picture gallery and a collection of antiquities. Among modern structures, the government offices, the provincial diet building, the post office, and the palace of the commander of the 17th army corps, which is headquartered in Danzig, are the most prominent.

The manufacture of arms and artillery is carried on to a great extent, and the imperial and private docks and shipbuilding establishments, notably the Schichau yard, turn out ships of the largest size. The town is famous for its amber, beer, brandy and liqueurs, and its transit trade makes it one of the most important commercial cities of northern Europe. Danzig originally owed its commercial importance to the fact that it was the shipping port for the corn grown in Poland and the adjacent regions of Russia and Prussia; but for some few years past this trade has been slipping away from her. On the other hand, her trade in timber and sugar has grown proportionally. Nevertheless energetic efforts are being made to check any loss of importance—first, in 1898, by a determined attempt to make Danzig an industrial centre, manufacturing on a large scale; and secondly, by the construction and opening in 1899 of a free harbour at Neufahrwasser at the mouth of the Vistula. The industries which it has been the principal aim to foster and further develop are shipbuilding (naval and marine), steel foundries and rolling mills, sugar refineries, flour and oil mills, and distilleries.

The production of weapons and artillery is significant, and the government and private shipyards, especially the Schichau yard, build very large ships. The town is known for its amber, beer, brandy, and liqueurs, and its transit trade has made it one of the key commercial cities in northern Europe. Danzig's commercial importance originally came from being the shipping port for grain grown in Poland and nearby areas of Russia and Prussia, but this trade has been declining in recent years. On the bright side, its trade in timber and sugar has increased proportionately. Nonetheless, there are strong efforts to prevent any further decline in significance—first, in 1898, with a focused initiative to make Danzig an industrial hub with large-scale manufacturing; and second, with the construction and opening in 1899 of a free harbor at Neufahrwasser at the Vistula River mouth. The industries that have been prioritized for development include shipbuilding (naval and marine), steel foundries and rolling mills, sugar refineries, flour and oil mills, and distilleries.

History.—The origin of Danzig is unknown, but it is mentioned in 997 as an important town. At different times it was held by Pomerania, Poland, Brandenburg and Denmark, and in 1308 it fell into the hands of the Teutonic knights, under whose rule it long prospered. It was one of the four chief towns of the Hanseatic League. In 1455, when the Teutonic Order had become thoroughly corrupt, Danzig shook off its yoke and submitted to the king of Poland, to whom it was formally ceded, along with the whole of West Prussia, at the peace of Thorn. Although nominally subject to Poland, and represented in the Polish diets and at the election of Polish kings, it enjoyed the rights of a free city, and governed a considerable territory with more than thirty villages. It suffered severely through various wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, and in 1734, having declared in favour of Stanislus Leszczynski, was besieged and taken by the Russians and Saxons. At the first partition of Poland, in 1772, Danzig was separated from that kingdom; and in 1793 it came into the possession of Prussia. In 1807, during the war between France and Prussia, it was bombarded and captured by Marshal Lefebvre, who was rewarded with the title of duke of Danzig; and at the peace of Tilsit Napoleon declared it a free town, under the protection of France, Prussia and Saxony, restoring to it its ancient territory. A French governor, however, remained in it, and by compelling it to submit to the continental system almost ruined its trade. It was given back to Prussia in 1814.

History.—The origin of Danzig is unknown, but it was mentioned in 997 as an important town. Over the years, it was controlled by Pomerania, Poland, Brandenburg, and Denmark, and in 1308 it fell into the hands of the Teutonic knights, under whose rule it thrived for a long time. It was one of the four main towns in the Hanseatic League. In 1455, when the Teutonic Order had become completely corrupt, Danzig freed itself and became subject to the king of Poland, who formally received it, along with all of West Prussia, at the peace of Thorn. Although it was nominally under Polish rule and participated in the Polish diets and elections of Polish kings, it enjoyed the privileges of a free city and governed a significant area with more than thirty villages. It suffered greatly during various wars in the 17th and 18th centuries, and in 1734, after declaring support for Stanislus Leszczynski, it was besieged and captured by the Russians and Saxons. During the first partition of Poland in 1772, Danzig was separated from that kingdom, and by 1793 it came under Prussian control. In 1807, during the war between France and Prussia, it was bombarded and seized by Marshal Lefebvre, who received the title of duke of Danzig; at the peace of Tilsit, Napoleon declared it a free town, under the protection of France, Prussia, and Saxony, restoring its former territory. However, a French governor remained in charge, and by forcing it to comply with the continental system, he nearly destroyed its trade. It was returned to Prussia in 1814.

See J. C. Schultz, Danzig und seine Bauwerke (Berlin, 1873); Wistulanus, Geschichte der Stadt Danzig (Danzig, 1891); Défense de Dantzig en 1813; documents militaires du lieutenant-général Campredon, pub. by Auriel (Paris, 1888); Daniel, Deutschland (Leipzig, 1895).

See J. C. Schultz, Danzig and Its Buildings (Berlin, 1873); Wistulanus, History of the City of Danzig (Danzig, 1891); Defense of Danzig in 1813; Military Documents of Lieutenant-General Campredon, published by Auriel (Paris, 1888); Daniel, Germany (Leipzig, 1895).


DAPHLA (or Dafla) HILLS, a tract of hilly country on the border of Eastern Bengal and Assam, occupied by an independent tribe called Daphla. It lies to the north of the Tezpur and North Lakhimpur subdivisions, and is bounded on the west by the Aka Hills and on the east by the Abor range. Colonel Dalton in The Ethnology of Bengal considers the Daphlas to be closely allied to the hill Miris, and they are akin to and intermarry with the Abors. They have a reputation for cowardice, and as politically they are disunited, they are at the mercy of the Akas, their less numerous but more warlike neighbours on the west. Their clothing is scanty, and its most distinguishing feature is a cane cap with a fringe of bearskin or feathers, which gives them a very curious appearance. The men wear their hair in a plait, which is coiled into a ball on the forehead, to which they fasten their caps with a long skewer. In 1872 a party of independent Daphlas suddenly attacked a colony of their own tribesmen, who had settled at Amtola in British territory, and carried away forty-four captives to the hills. This led to the Daphla expedition of 1874, when a force of 1000 troops released the prisoners and reduced the tribe to submission. According to the census of 1901 the Daphlas in British territory numbered 954, the tribal country not being enumerated.

DAPHLA (or Dafla) HILLS, is a hilly region located on the border of Eastern Bengal and Assam, inhabited by an independent tribe known as the Daphla. It is situated to the north of the Tezpur and North Lakhimpur subdivisions, bordered on the west by the Aka Hills and on the east by the Abor range. Colonel Dalton in The Ethnology of Bengal considers the Daphlas to be closely related to the hill Miris, and they share ties and intermarry with the Abors. They have a reputation for being cowardly, and because they are politically fragmented, they are vulnerable to the Akas, who are fewer in number but more aggressive neighbors to the west. Their clothing is minimal, and the most distinctive feature is a cane cap adorned with a fringe made of bearskin or feathers, giving them a unique look. The men style their hair in a braid, which is coiled into a bun on their forehead, securing their caps with a long skewer. In 1872, a group of independent Daphlas unexpectedly attacked a settlement of their own tribesmen at Amtola in British territory, capturing forty-four individuals and taking them back to the hills. This prompted the Daphla expedition of 1874, during which a force of 1,000 troops rescued the captives and subdued the tribe. According to the 1901 census, there were 954 Daphlas living in British territory, but the tribal region was not counted.


DAPHNAE (Tahpanhes, Taphne; mod. Defenneh), an ancient fortress near the Syrian frontier of Egypt, on the Pelusian arm of the Nile. Here King Psammetichus established a garrison of foreign mercenaries, mostly Carians and Ionian Greeks (Herodotus ii. 154). After the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in 588 B.C., the Jewish fugitives, of whom Jeremiah was one, came to Tahpanhes. When Naucratis was given by Amasis II. the monopoly of Greek traffic, the Greeks were all removed from Daphnae, and the place never recovered its prosperity; in Herodotus’s time the deserted remains of the docks and buildings were visible. The site was discovered by Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie in 1886; the name “Castle of the Jew’s Daughter” seems to preserve the tradition of the Jewish refugees. There is a massive fort and enclosure; the chief discovery was a large number of fragments of pottery, which are of great importance for the chronology of vase-painting, since they must belong to the time between Psammetichus and Amasis, i.e. the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century B.C. They show the characteristics of Ionian art, but their shapes and other details testify to their local manufacture.

DAPHNAE (Tahpanhes, Taphne; modern Defenneh), an ancient fortress near the Syrian border of Egypt, on the Pelusian branch of the Nile. Here, King Psammetichus set up a garrison of foreign mercenaries, mainly Carians and Ionian Greeks (Herodotus ii. 154). After Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 588 B.C., Jewish refugees, including Jeremiah, arrived at Tahpanhes. When Amasis II granted Naucratis a monopoly on Greek trade, all the Greeks were removed from Daphnae, and the area never regained its former prosperity; during Herodotus’s time, the abandoned remains of the docks and buildings were still visible. The site was discovered by Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie in 1886; the name “Castle of the Jew’s Daughter” seems to maintain the tradition of the Jewish refugees. There is a large fortress and enclosure; the main discovery was a significant number of pottery fragments, which are very important for the timeline of vase-painting, as they date from the period between Psammetichus and Amasis, specifically the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century B.C. These fragments display characteristics of Ionian art, but their shapes and other details indicate local craftsmanship.

See W. M. F. Petrie, Tanis II., Nebesheh, and Defenneh (4th Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1888).

See W. M. F. Petrie, Tanis II., Nebesheh, and Defenneh (4th Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1888).

(E. Gr.)

DAPHNE (Gr. for a laurel tree), in Greek mythology, the daughter of the Arcadian river-god Ladon or the Thessalian Peneus, or of the Laconian Amyclas. She was beloved by Apollo, and when pursued by him was changed by her mother Gaea into a laurel tree sacred to the god (Ovid, Metam. i. 452-567). In the Peloponnesian legends, another suitor of Daphne, Leucippus, son of Oenomaüs of Pisa, disguised himself as a girl and joined her companions. His sex was discovered while bathing, and he was slain by the nymphs (Pausanias viii. 20; Parthenius, Erotica, 15).

DAPHNE (Greek for a laurel tree), in Greek mythology, is the daughter of the Arcadian river-god Ladon or the Thessalian Peneus, or the Laconian Amyclas. She was loved by Apollo, and when he pursued her, her mother Gaea transformed her into a laurel tree, which became sacred to the god (Ovid, Metam. i. 452-567). In the legends of the Peloponnesus, another suitor of Daphne, Leucippus, son of Oenomaüs of Pisa, disguised himself as a girl and joined her friends. His true nature was revealed while bathing, and he was killed by the nymphs (Pausanias viii. 20; Parthenius, Erotica, 15).


DAPHNE, in botany, a genus of shrubs, belonging to the natural order Thymelaeaceae, and containing about forty species, natives of Europe and temperate Asia. D. Laureola, spurge laurel, a small evergreen shrub with green flowers in the leaf axils towards the ends of the branches and ovoid black very poisonous berries, is found in England in copses and on hedge-banks in stiff soils. D. Mezereum, mezereon, a rather larger shrub, 2 to 4 ft. high, has deciduous leaves, and bears fragrant pink flowers in clusters in the axils of last season’s leaves, in early spring before the foliage. The bright red ovoid berries are cathartic, the whole plant is acrid and poisonous, and the bark is used medicinally. It is a native of Europe and north Asia, and found apparently wild in copses and woods in Britain. It is a well-known garden plant, and several other species of the genus are cultivated in the open air and as greenhouse plants. D. Cneorum (Europe) is a hardy evergreen trailing shrub, with bright pink sweet-scented flowers. D. pontica (Eastern Europe) is a hardy spreading evergreen with greenish-yellow fragrant flowers. D. indica (China) and D. japonica (Japan) are greenhouse evergreens with respectively red or white and pinkish-purple flowers.

Daphne, is a genus of shrubs in the Thymelaeaceae family, consisting of around forty species native to Europe and temperate Asia. D. Laureola, known as spurge laurel, is a small evergreen shrub that has green flowers in the leaf axils near the ends of the branches and ovoid black berries that are very poisonous. It can be found in England in dense soils, often in copses and along hedge banks. D. Mezereum, or mezereon, is a larger shrub, standing 2 to 4 feet tall, with deciduous leaves. It produces fragrant pink flowers in clusters in the axils of last season's leaves early in spring, before the new foliage appears. The bright red ovoid berries are cathartic, the entire plant is acrid and poisonous, and the bark is used for medicinal purposes. It is native to Europe and northern Asia and is commonly found in the wild in copses and woods across Britain. It's a well-known garden plant, and several other species from this genus are grown both outdoors and in greenhouses. D. Cneorum (Europe) is a hardy, trailing evergreen shrub that features bright pink, sweet-scented flowers. D. pontica (Eastern Europe) is a hardy, spreading evergreen with fragrant greenish-yellow flowers. D. indica (China) and D. japonica (Japan) are greenhouse-evergreens with flowers that are respectively red or white and pinkish-purple.


DAPHNEPHORIA, a festival held every ninth year at Thebes in Boeotia in honour of Apollo Ismenius or Galaxius. It consisted of a procession in which the chief figure was a boy of good family and noble appearance, whose father and mother must be alive. 826 Immediately in front of this boy, who was called Daphnephoros (laurel bearer), walked one of his nearest relatives, carrying an olive branch hung with laurel and flowers and having on the upper end a bronze ball from which hung several smaller balls. Another smaller ball was placed on the middle of the branch or pole (called κωπώ), which was then twined round with purple ribbons, and at the lower end with saffron ribbons. These balls were said to indicate the sun, stars and moon, while the ribbons referred to the days of the year, being 365 in number. The Daphnephoros, wearing a golden crown, or a wreath of laurel, richly dressed and partly holding the pole, was followed by a chorus of maidens carrying suppliant branches and singing a hymn to the god. The Daphnephoros dedicated a bronze tripod in the temple of Apollo, and Pausanias (ix. 10. 4) mentions the tripod dedicated there by Amphitryon when his son Heracles had been Daphnephoros. The festival is described by Proclus (in Photius cod. 239).

Daphnephoria, is a festival held every nine years in Thebes, Boeotia, in honor of Apollo Ismenius or Galaxius. It featured a procession led by a boy from a respectable family with a noble appearance, whose parents had to be alive. 826 Right in front of this boy, known as the Daphnephoros (laurel bearer), walked one of his closest relatives, holding an olive branch decorated with laurel and flowers, topped with a bronze ball that had smaller balls hanging from it. Another smaller ball was placed in the middle of the branch or pole (called κωπώ), which was wrapped with purple ribbons at the top and saffron ribbons at the bottom. These balls symbolized the sun, stars, and moon, while the ribbons represented the days of the year, totaling 365. The Daphnephoros, adorned with a golden crown or a laurel wreath, dressed in rich clothing and partially holding the pole, was followed by a choir of maidens carrying branches for supplication and singing a hymn to the god. The Daphnephoros dedicated a bronze tripod in the temple of Apollo, and Pausanias (ix. 10. 4) mentions the tripod dedicated there by Amphitryon when his son Heracles was the Daphnephoros. The festival is described by Proclus (in Photius cod. 239).

See also A. Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen (1898); C. O. Müller, Orchomenos (1844); article in Daremberg and Saglio’s Dictionnaire des antiquités.

See also A. Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen (1898); C. O. Müller, Orchomenos (1844); article in Daremberg and Saglio’s Dictionnaire des antiquités.


DAPHNIS, the legendary hero of the shepherds of Sicily, and reputed inventor of bucolic poetry. The chief authorities for his story are Diodorus Siculus, Aelian and Theocritus. According to his countryman Diodorus (iv. 84), and Aelian (Var. Hist., x. 18), Daphnis was the son of Hermes (in his character of the shepherd-god) and a Sicilian nymph, and was born or exposed and found by shepherds in a grove of laurels (whence his name.) He was brought up by the nymphs, or by shepherds, and became the owner of flocks and herds, which he tended while playing on the syrinx. When in the first bloom of youth, he won the affection of a nymph, who made him promise to love none but her, threatening that, if he proved unfaithful, he would lose his eyesight. He failed to keep his promise and was smitten with blindness. Daphnis, who endeavoured to console himself by playing the flute and singing shepherds’ songs, soon afterwards died. He fell from a cliff, or was changed into a rock, or was taken up to heaven by his father Hermes, who caused a spring of water to gush out from the spot where his son had been carried off. Ever afterwards the Sicilians offered sacrifices at this spring as an expiatory offering for the youth’s early death. There is little doubt that Aelian in his account follows Stesichorus (q.v.) of Himera, who in like manner had been blinded by the vengeance of a woman (Helen) and probably sang of the sufferings of Daphnis in his recantation. Nothing is said of Daphnis’s blindness by Theocritus, who dwells on his amour with Naïs; his victory over Menalcas in a poetical competition; his love for Xenea brought about by the wrath of Aphrodite; his wanderings through the woods while suffering the torments of unrequited love; his death just at the moment when Aphrodite, moved by compassion, endeavours (but too late) to save him; the deep sorrow, shared by nature and all created things, for his untimely end (Theocritus i. vii. viii.). A later form of the legend identifies Daphnis with a Phrygian hero, and makes him the teacher of Marsyas. The legend of Daphnis and his early death may be compared with those of Narcissus, Linus and Adonis—all beautiful youths cut off in their prime, typical of the luxuriant growth of vegetation in the spring, and its sudden withering away beneath the scorching summer sun.

DAPHNIS, the legendary hero of the shepherds of Sicily, is also known as the creator of pastoral poetry. The main sources for his story are Diodorus Siculus, Aelian, and Theocritus. According to his fellow countryman Diodorus (iv. 84), and Aelian (Var. Hist., x. 18), Daphnis was the son of Hermes (in his role as the shepherd-god) and a Sicilian nymph. He was either born or abandoned and later found by shepherds in a laurel grove (which is how he got his name). He was raised by the nymphs or by shepherds and became the owner of flocks and herds, which he tended while playing the syrinx. In his youth, he won the love of a nymph who made him promise to love no one else, warning him that if he was unfaithful, he would lose his sight. He broke his promise and was struck blind. Daphnis, who tried to comfort himself by playing the flute and singing shepherd songs, soon died. He fell from a cliff, was turned into a rock, or was taken up to heaven by his father Hermes, who caused a spring of water to flow from the place where his son had been taken. From then on, the Sicilians offered sacrifices at this spring to make amends for the young man's early death. It's likely that Aelian's account is based on Stesichorus (q.v.) of Himera, who similarly was blinded by a woman's revenge (Helen) and probably sang about Daphnis's suffering in his recantation. Theocritus doesn’t mention Daphnis's blindness; instead, he focuses on his romance with Naïs, his victory over Menalcas in a poetry contest, his love for Xenea due to Aphrodite's anger, his wanderings through the woods suffering from unrequited love, his death just as Aphrodite, moved by compassion, tries to save him (but too late), and the deep sorrow shared by nature and all living things for his untimely death (Theocritus i. vii. viii.). A later version of the legend links Daphnis to a Phrygian hero and makes him the teacher of Marsyas. The tale of Daphnis and his early death can be compared to those of Narcissus, Linus, and Adonis—all beautiful young men who died young, symbolizing the lush growth of spring vegetation and its sudden wilting under the harsh summer sun.

See F. G. Welcker, Kleine Schriften zur griechischen Litteraturgeschichte, i. (1844); C. F. Hermann, De Daphnide Theocriti (1853); R. H. Klausen, Aeneas und die Penaten, i. (1840); R. Reitzenstein, Epigramm und Skolion (1893); H. W. Prescott in Harvard Studies, x. (1899); H. W. Stoll in Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie; and G. Knaack in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie.

See F. G. Welcker, Kleine Schriften zur griechischen Litteraturgeschichte, i. (1844); C. F. Hermann, De Daphnide Theocriti (1853); R. H. Klausen, Aeneas und die Penaten, i. (1840); R. Reitzenstein, Epigramm und Skolion (1893); H. W. Prescott in Harvard Studies, x. (1899); H. W. Stoll in Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie; and G. Knaack in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie.


DARÁB (originally Darábgerd), a district of the province of Fars in Persia. It has sixty-two villages, and possesses a hot climate, snow being rarely seen there in winter. It produces a great quantity of dates and much tobacco, which is considered the best in Persia. The town Daráb, the capital of the district, is situated in a very fertile plain, 140 m. S.E. of Shiraz. It has a population of about 5000, and extensive orchards of orange and lemon trees and immense plantations of date-palms. Legend ascribes the foundation of the city to Darius, hence its name Daráb-gerd (Darius-town). In the neighbourhood there are various remains of antiquity, the most important of which 3½ m. S., is known as the Kalah i Daráb, or citadel of Darius, and consists of a series of earthworks arranged in a circle round an isolated rock. Nothing, however, remains to fix the date or explain the history of the fortification. Another monument in the vicinity is a gigantic bas-relief, carved on the vertical face of a rock, representing the victory of the Sassanian Shapur I. (Sapor) of Persia over the Roman emperor Valerian, A.D. 260.

DARÁB (originally Darábgerd), a district in the province of Fars in Persia. It has sixty-two villages and has a hot climate, with snow rarely seen in winter. The area produces a large quantity of dates and a lot of tobacco, which is considered the best in Persia. The town of Daráb, the capital of the district, is located in a very fertile plain, 140 miles southeast of Shiraz. It has a population of about 5,000 and extensive orchards of orange and lemon trees, along with huge plantations of date palms. Legend attributes the city’s foundation to Darius, hence its name Daráb-gerd (Darius-town). Nearby, there are various ancient remains, the most significant of which is known as Kalah i Daráb, or the citadel of Darius, located 3.5 miles south. It consists of a series of earthworks arranged in a circle around an isolated rock. However, nothing remains to determine the date or explain the history of the fortification. Another monument in the area is a massive bas-relief carved on the vertical face of a rock, depicting the victory of the Sassanian Shapur I. (Sapor) of Persia over the Roman emperor Valerian in A.D. 260.


DARBHANGA, a town and district of British India, in the Patna division of Bengal. The town is on the left bank of the Little Baghmati river, and has a railway station. Pop. (1901) 66,244. The town is really a collection of villages that have grown up round the residence of the raja. This is a magnificent palace, with gardens, a menagerie and a good library. There are a first-class hospital, with a Lady Dufferin hospital attached; a handsome market-place, and an Anglo-vernacular school. The district of Darbhanga extends from the Nepal frontier to the Ganges. It was constituted in 1875 out of the unwieldy district of Tirhoot. Its area is 3348 sq. m. In 1901 the population was 2,912,611, showing an increase of 4% in the decade. The district consists entirely of an alluvial plain, in which the principal rivers are the Ganges, Buri Gandak, Baghmati and Little Baghmati, Balan and Little Balan, and Tiljuga. The land is especially fertile in the more elevated part of the district S.W. of the Buri Gandak; rice is the staple crop, and it may be noted that the cultivator in Darbhanga is especially dependent on the winter harvest. The chief exports are rice, indigo, linseed and other seeds, saltpetre and tobacco. There are several indigo factories and saltpetre refineries, and a tobacco factory. The district is traversed by the main line of the Bengal & North-Western railway and by branch lines, part of which were begun as a famine relief work in 1874.

DARBHANGA, is a town and district in British India, located in the Patna division of Bengal. The town sits on the left bank of the Little Baghmati River and has a railway station. Population (1901): 66,244. The town is essentially a group of villages that have developed around the raja's residence. This residence is a stunning palace, complete with gardens, a menagerie, and a decent library. There’s a first-class hospital, along with an attached Lady Dufferin hospital; a beautiful marketplace, and an Anglo-vernacular school. The district of Darbhanga stretches from the Nepal border to the Ganges. It was established in 1875 from the large and unwieldy district of Tirhoot. It covers an area of 3,348 square miles. In 1901, the population was 2,912,611, reflecting a 4% increase over the decade. The district consists entirely of an alluvial plain, with the main rivers being the Ganges, Buri Gandak, Baghmati, Little Baghmati, Balan, Little Balan, and Tiljuga. The land is particularly fertile in the higher areas of the district southwest of the Buri Gandak; rice is the main crop, and it's worth noting that farmers in Darbhanga rely heavily on the winter harvest. The primary exports include rice, indigo, linseed and other seeds, saltpetre, and tobacco. There are several indigo factories, saltpetre refineries, and a tobacco factory. The district is crossed by the main line of the Bengal & North-Western railway and various branch lines, some of which were initiated as part of famine relief efforts in 1874.

The maharaja bahadur of Darbhanga, a Rajput, whose ancestor Mahesh Thakor received the Darbhanga raj (which includes large parts of the modern districts of Darbhanga, Muzaffarpur, Monghyr, Purnea and Bhagalpur) from the emperor Akbar early in the 16th century, is not only the premier territorial noble of Behar but one of the greatest noblemen of all India. Maharaja Lachhmeswar Singh Bahadur, who succeeded to the raj in 1860 and died in 1898, was distinguished for his public services, and especially as one of the most munificent of living philanthropists. Under his supervision his raj came to be regarded as the model for good and benevolent management; he constructed hundreds of miles of roads planted with trees, bridged all the rivers, and constructed irrigation works on a great scale. His charities were without limit; thus he contributed £300,000 for the relief of the sufferers from the Bengal famine of 1873-1874, and it is computed that during his possession of the raj he expended at least £2,000,000 on charities, works of public utility, and charitable remissions of rent. For many years he served as a member of the legislative council of the viceroy with conspicuous ability and moderation of view. As representative of the landowners of Berar and Bengal he took an important part in the discussion on the Bengal Tenancy Bill. He was succeeded by his brother, Maharaja Rameshwar Singh Bahadur, who was born on the 16th of January 1860, and on attaining his majority in 1878 was appointed to the Indian Civil Service, serving as assistant magistrate successively at Darbhanga, Chhapra and Bhagalpur. In 1886 he was created a raja bahadur, exempted from attendance at the civil courts, and appointed a member of the legislative council of Bengal. He was created a maharaja bahadur on his succession to the raj in 1898. Like his brother, he was educated by an English tutor, and his administration carried on the enlightened traditions of his predecessor.

The Maharaja Bahadur of Darbhanga, a Rajput, whose ancestor Mahesh Thakor received the Darbhanga raj (which includes large parts of what are now the districts of Darbhanga, Muzaffarpur, Munger, Purnea, and Bhagalpur) from Emperor Akbar in the early 16th century, is not only the top territorial noble of Bihar but also one of the greatest noblemen in all of India. Maharaja Lachhmeswar Singh Bahadur, who took over the raj in 1860 and passed away in 1898, was known for his public service and was especially recognized as one of the most generous philanthropists of his time. Under his leadership, his raj was seen as a model for good and compassionate governance; he built hundreds of miles of tree-lined roads, bridged every river, and created extensive irrigation projects. His charitable contributions were boundless; for instance, he donated £300,000 to help those affected by the Bengal famine of 1873-1874, and it is estimated that during his time in charge of the raj, he spent at least £2,000,000 on charities, public works, and charitable rent reductions. For many years, he served as a member of the viceroy's legislative council, demonstrating notable ability and a balanced perspective. As a representative of the landowners of Berar and Bengal, he played a significant role in discussions about the Bengal Tenancy Bill. He was succeeded by his brother, Maharaja Rameshwar Singh Bahadur, who was born on January 16, 1860. Upon reaching adulthood in 1878, he joined the Indian Civil Service, serving as an assistant magistrate in Darbhanga, Chhapra, and Bhagalpur. In 1886, he was honored with the title of Raja Bahadur, exempted from attending civil courts, and appointed as a member of the legislative council of Bengal. He became Maharaja Bahadur upon succeeding to the raj in 1898. Like his brother, he was educated by an English tutor, and he continued the enlightened traditions of his predecessor in his administration.

See Sir Roper Lethbridge, The Golden Book of India.

See Sir Roper Lethbridge, The Golden Book of India.


D’ARBLAY, FRANCES (1752-1840), English novelist and diarist, better known as Fanny Burney, daughter of Dr Charles Burney (q.v.), was born at King’s Lynn, Norfolk, on the 13th of June 1752. Her mother was Esther Sleepe, granddaughter of a French refugee named Dubois. Fanny was the fourth child in a family of six. Of her brothers, James (1750-1821) became an admiral and sailed with Captain Cook on his second and third voyages, and Charles Burney (1757-1817) was a well-known 827 classical scholar. In 1760 the family removed to London, and Dr Burney, who was now a fashionable music master, took a house in Poland Street. Mrs Burney died in 1761, when Fanny was only nine years old. Her sisters Esther (Hetty), afterwards Mrs Charles Rousseau Burney, and Susanna, afterwards Mrs Phillips, were sent to school in Paris, but Fanny was left to educate herself. Early in 1766 she paid her first visit to Dr Burney’s friend Samuel Crisp at Chessington Hall, near Epsom. Dr Burney had first made Samuel Crisp’s acquaintance about 1745 at the house of Fulke Greville, grandfather of the diarists, and the two studied music while the rest of the guests hunted. Crisp wrote a play, Virginia, which was staged by David Garrick in 1754 at the request of the beautiful countess of Coventry (née Maria Gunning). The play had no great success, and in 1764 Crisp established himself in retirement at Chessington Hall, where he frequently entertained his sister, Mrs Sophia Gast, of Burford, Oxfordshire, and Dr Burney and his family, to whom he was familiarly known as “daddy” Crisp.1 It was to her “daddy” Crisp and her sister Susan that Fanny Burney addressed large portions of her diary and many of her letters. After his wife’s death in 1767, Dr Burney married Elizabeth Allen, widow of a King’s Lynn wine-merchant.

D'ARBLAY, FRANCES (1752-1840), an English novelist and diarist, better known as Fanny Burney, was born in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, on June 13, 1752. Her mother, Esther Sleepe, was the granddaughter of a French refugee named Dubois. Fanny was the fourth child in a family of six. Among her brothers, James (1750-1821) became an admiral and sailed with Captain Cook on his second and third voyages, while Charles Burney (1757-1817) was a well-known 827 classical scholar. In 1760, the family moved to London, where Dr. Burney, now a trendy music master, settled in a house on Poland Street. Mrs. Burney passed away in 1761 when Fanny was just nine years old. Her sisters, Esther (Hetty), who later became Mrs. Charles Rousseau Burney, and Susanna, who became Mrs. Phillips, were sent to school in Paris, but Fanny was left to educate herself. In early 1766, she made her first visit to Dr. Burney’s friend Samuel Crisp at Chessington Hall, near Epsom. Dr. Burney had first met Samuel Crisp around 1745 at the home of Fulke Greville, the grandfather of the diarists, where they studied music while the other guests went hunting. Crisp wrote a play, Virginia, which was performed by David Garrick in 1754 at the request of the beautiful Countess of Coventry (née Maria Gunning). The play wasn't very successful, and in 1764, Crisp retired to Chessington Hall, where he often hosted his sister, Mrs. Sophia Gast, from Burford, Oxfordshire, as well as Dr. Burney and his family, to whom he was affectionately known as “daddy” Crisp.1 Fanny Burney directed large portions of her diary and many of her letters to her “daddy” Crisp and her sister Susan. After his wife’s death in 1767, Dr. Burney married Elizabeth Allen, the widow of a wine merchant from King’s Lynn.

From her fifteenth year Fanny lived in the midst of an exceptionally brilliant social circle, gathered round her father in Poland Street, and later in his new home in St Martin’s Street, Leicester Fields. Garrick was a constant visitor, and would arrive before eight o’clock in the morning. Of the various “lyons” they entertained she leaves a graphic account, notably of Omai, the Otaheitan native, and of Alexis Orlov, the favourite of Catherine II. of Russia. Dr Johnson she first met at her father’s home in March 1777. Her father’s drawing-room, where she met many of the chief musicians, actors and authors of the day, was in fact Fanny’s only school. Her reading, however, was by no means limited. Macaulay stated that in the whole of Dr Burney’s library there was but one novel, Fielding’s Amelia; but Austin Dobson points out that she was acquainted with the abbé Prévost’s Doyen de Killérine, and with Marivaux’s Vie de Marianne, besides Clarissa Harlowe and the books of Mrs Elizabeth Griffith and Mrs Frances Brooke. Her diary also contains the record of much more strenuous reading. Her stepmother, a woman of some cultivation, did not encourage habits of scribbling. Fanny, therefore, made a bonfire of her MSS., among them a History of Caroline Evelyn, a story containing an account of Evelina’s mother. Luckily her journal did not meet with the same fate. The first entry in it was made on the 30th of May 1768, and it extended over seventy-two years. The earlier portions of it underwent wholesale editing in later days, and much of it was entirely obliterated. She planned out Evelina, or A Young Lady’s Entrance into the World, long before it was written down. Evelina was published by Thomas Lowndes in the end of January 1778, but it was not until June that Dr Burney learned its authorship, when the book had been reviewed and praised everywhere. Fanny proudly told Mrs Thrale the secret. Mrs Thrale wrote to Dr Burney on the 22nd of July: “Mr Johnson returned home full of the Prayes of the Book I had lent him, and protesting that there were passages in it which might do honour to Richardson: we talk of it for ever, and he feels ardent after the denouement; he could not get rid of the Rogue, he said.” Miss Burney soon visited the Thrales at Streatham, “the most consequential day I have spent since my birth” she calls the occasion. It was the prelude to much longer visits there. Dr Johnson’s best compliments were made for her benefit, and eagerly transcribed in her diary. His affectionate friendship for “little Burney” only ceased with his death.

From the age of fifteen, Fanny was immersed in a remarkable social scene, centered around her father on Poland Street, and later in his new home on St Martin’s Street, Leicester Fields. Garrick was a regular visitor, often arriving before eight in the morning. She gives a vivid account of the various notable people they entertained, especially Omai, the native from Otaheite, and Alexis Orlov, Catherine II of Russia's favorite. Fanny first met Dr. Johnson at her father's home in March 1777. Her father’s drawing room, where she mingled with many of the top musicians, actors, and authors of the time, was essentially Fanny’s only schooling. However, her reading was by no means limited. Macaulay noted that there was just one novel in Dr. Burney’s library, Fielding’s Amelia; but Austin Dobson mentions that she also knew about abbé Prévost’s Doyen de Killérine, Marivaux’s Vie de Marianne, in addition to Clarissa Harlowe and the works of Mrs. Elizabeth Griffith and Mrs. Frances Brooke. Her diary also reflects a much more rigorous reading list. Her stepmother, a cultured woman, did not support the habit of writing. As a result, Fanny burned her manuscripts, which included a History of Caroline Evelyn, a story detailing Evelina’s mother. Fortunately, her journal did not suffer the same fate. The first entry in it was made on May 30, 1768, and it continued for seventy-two years. The earlier parts were heavily edited later on, with much of it completely erased. She outlined Evelina, or A Young Lady’s Entrance into the World, long before she actually wrote it down. Evelina was published by Thomas Lowndes at the end of January 1778, but it wasn’t until June that Dr. Burney discovered who wrote it, after the book had been reviewed and praised everywhere. Fanny proudly revealed the secret to Mrs. Thrale. On July 22, Mrs. Thrale wrote to Dr. Burney: “Mr. Johnson came home raving about the praises of the Book I lent him, insisting that there are parts which could do honour to Richardson: we’re constantly discussing it, and he’s passionate after the ending; he said he couldn't shake off the Rogue.” Miss Burney soon visited the Thrales at Streatham, calling it “the most significant day I’ve spent since my birth.” It marked the beginning of much longer visits. Dr. Johnson paid her the highest compliments, which she eagerly noted in her diary. His affection for “little Burney” continued until his death.

Evelina was a continued success. Sir Joshua Reynolds sat up all night to read it, as did Edmund Burke, who came next to Johnson in Miss Burney’s esteem. She was introduced to Elizabeth Montagu and the other bluestocking ladies, to Richard Brinsley Sheridan, and to the gay Mrs Mary Cholmondeley, the sister of Peg Woffington, whose manners, as described in the diary, explain much of Evelina. At the suggestion of Mrs Thrale, and with offers of help from Arthur Murphy, and encouragement from Sheridan, Fanny began to write a comedy. Crisp, realizing the limitations of her powers, tried to dissuade her, and the piece, The Witlings, was suppressed in deference to what she called a “hissing, groaning, catcalling epistle” from her two “daddies.” Meanwhile her intercourse with Mrs Thrale proved very exacting, and left her little time for writing. She went with her to Bath in 1780, and was at Streatham again in 1781. Her next book was written partly at Chessington and after much discussion with Mr Crisp. Cecilia; or, Memoirs of an Heiress, by the author of Evelina, was published in 5 vols. in 1782 by Messrs Payne & Cadell (who paid the author £250—not £2000 as stated by Macaulay). If Cecilia has not quite the freshness and charm of Evelina, it is more carefully constructed, and contains many happy examples of what Johnson called Miss Burney’s gift of “character-mongering.” Burke sent her a letter full of high praise. But some of her friends found the writing too often modelled on Johnson’s, and Horace Walpole thought the personages spoke too uniformly in character.

Evelina was a huge hit. Sir Joshua Reynolds stayed up all night reading it, just like Edmund Burke, who was right after Johnson in Miss Burney’s admiration. She met Elizabeth Montagu and the other bluestocking ladies, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, and the lively Mrs. Mary Cholmondeley, sister of Peg Woffington, whose mannerisms, as described in the diary, explain a lot about Evelina. At Mrs. Thrale’s suggestion, and with help from Arthur Murphy and encouragement from Sheridan, Fanny started to write a comedy. Crisp, recognizing her limitations, tried to talk her out of it, and the play, The Witlings, was put on hold due to what she termed a “hissing, groaning, catcalling epistle” from her two “daddies.” Meanwhile, her time with Mrs. Thrale was very demanding, leaving her little time to write. She traveled to Bath with her in 1780 and was back at Streatham in 1781. Her next book was written partly at Chessington after a lot of discussions with Mr. Crisp. Cecilia; or, Memoirs of an Heiress, by the author of Evelina, was published in 5 volumes in 1782 by Messrs Payne & Cadell (who paid the author £250—not £2000 as stated by Macaulay). While Cecilia may not have the same freshness and charm as Evelina, it is more carefully structured and features several great examples of what Johnson called Miss Burney’s talent for “character-mongering.” Burke sent her a letter full of high praise. However, some of her friends thought the writing too often mimicked Johnson’s style, and Horace Walpole believed the characters spoke too uniformly.

On the 24th of April 1783, Fanny Burney’s “most judicious adviser and stimulating critic,” “daddy” Crisp, died. He was her devoted friend, as she was to him, “the dearest thing on earth.” The next year she was to lose two more friends. Mrs Thrale married Piozzi, and Johnson died. Fanny had met the celebrated Mrs Delany in 1783, and she now attached herself to her. Mrs Delany, who was living (1785) in a house near Windsor Castle presented to her by George III., was on the friendliest terms with both the king and queen, and Fanny was honoured with more than one royal interview. Queen Charlotte, soon afterwards, offered Miss Burney the post of second keeper of the robes, with a salary of £200 a year, which after some hesitation was accepted. Much has been said against Dr Burney for allowing the authoress of Evelina and Cecilia to undertake an office which meant separation from all her friends and a wearisome round of court ceremonial. On the other hand, it may be fairly urged that Fanny’s literary gifts were really limited. She had written nothing for four years, and apparently felt she had used her best material. “What my daddy Crisp says,” she wrote as early as 1779, “’that it would be the best policy, but for pecuniary advantages, for me to write no more,’ is exactly what I have always thought since Evelina was published” (Diary, i. 258). Her misgivings as to her unfitness for court life were quite justified. From Queen Charlotte she received unvarying kindness, though she was not very clever with her waiting-maid’s duties. She had to attend the queen’s toilet, to take care of her lap-dog and her snuff-box, and to help her senior, Mrs Schwellenberg, in entertaining the king’s equerries and visitors at tea. The constant association with Mrs Schwellenberg, who has been described as “a peevish old person of uncertain temper and impaired health, swaddled in the buckram of backstairs etiquette,” proved to be the worst part of Fanny’s duties. Her diary is full of amusing court gossip, and sometimes deals with graver matters, notably in the account of Warren Hastings’ trial, and in the story of the beginning of George III.’s madness, as seen by a member of his household. But the strain told on her health, and after pressure both from Fanny and her numerous friends, Dr Burney prepared with her a joint memorial asking the queen’s leave to resign. She left the royal service in July 1791 with a retiring pension of £100 a year, granted from the queen’s private purse, and returned to her father’s house at Chelsea. Dr Burney had been appointed organist at Chelsea Hospital in 1783, through Burke’s influence.

On April 24, 1783, Fanny Burney's "most insightful adviser and encouraging critic," "daddy" Crisp, passed away. He was her devoted friend, just as she was to him, "the dearest thing on earth." The following year, she would lose two more friends. Mrs. Thrale married Piozzi, and Johnson died. In 1783, Fanny met the renowned Mrs. Delany, and she became close to her. Mrs. Delany, who was living in a house near Windsor Castle that was given to her by George III, was friendly with both the king and queen, and Fanny was honored with several royal meetings. Shortly after, Queen Charlotte offered Miss Burney the position of second keeper of the robes, with an annual salary of £200, which she accepted after some hesitation. Many criticized Dr. Burney for letting the author of Evelina and Cecilia take a position that would separate her from her friends and involve her in exhausting court duties. However, it can be argued that Fanny's literary talents were somewhat limited. She hadn't written anything for four years and seemed to feel she'd exhausted her best ideas. "What my daddy Crisp says," she wrote as early as 1779, "that it would be the best policy, but for financial reasons, for me to write no more, is exactly what I've always thought since Evelina was published" (Diary, i. 258). Her concerns about her suitability for court life were justified. From Queen Charlotte, she received consistent kindness, but she struggled with her duties as a waiting maid. She had to assist the queen with her grooming, look after her lap dog and snuff box, and help her senior, Mrs. Schwellenberg, entertain the king’s equerries and guests at tea. The constant company of Mrs. Schwellenberg, described as “a cranky old person with an unpredictable temper and poor health, wrapped up in the formality of backstairs etiquette,” turned out to be the worst part of Fanny’s responsibilities. Her diary is filled with entertaining court gossip, and sometimes touches on more serious topics, especially in accounts of Warren Hastings’ trial and the onset of George III’s madness, as observed by someone from his household. However, the stress affected her health, and after pressure from both Fanny and her many friends, Dr. Burney worked with her to prepare a joint memorial requesting the queen's permission to resign. She left royal service in July 1791 with a retirement pension of £100 a year, granted from the queen’s private funds, and returned to her father's home in Chelsea. Dr. Burney had been appointed organist at Chelsea Hospital in 1783, thanks to Burke’s influence.

In 1792 she became acquainted with a group of French exiles, who had taken a house, Juniper Hall, near Mickleham, where Fanny’s sister, Mrs Phillips, lived. On the 31st of July 1793 she married one of the exiles, Alexandre D’Arblay, an artillery officer, who had been adjutant-general to La Fayette. They took a cottage at Bookham on the strength, it appears, of Miss Burney’s pension. In 1793 she produced her Brief Reflections relative to the Emigrant French Clergy. Her son Alexandre was born on the 18th of December 1794. In the following spring 828 Sheridan produced at Drury Lane her Edwy and Elgiva, a tragedy which was not saved even by the acting of the Kembles and Mrs Siddons. The play was never printed. Money was now a serious object, and Madame D’Arblay was therefore persuaded to issue her next novel, Camilla: or A Picture of Youth (5 vols., 1796), by subscription. A month after publication Dr Burney told Horace Walpole that his daughter had made £2000 by the book, and this sum was almost certainly augmented later. It is interesting to note that Jane Austen was among the subscribers. Unfortunately its literary success was not as great. “How I like Camilla?” wrote Horace Walpole to Miss Hannah More (August 29th, 1796), “I do not care to say how little. Alas! she has reversed experience ... this author knew the world and penetrated characters before she had stepped over the threshold; and, now she has seen so much of it, she has little or no insight at all: perhaps she apprehended having seen too much, and kept the bags of foul air that she brought from the Cave of Tempests too closely tied.” Nevertheless Camilla has found judicious persons to admire it, notably Jane Austen in Northanger Abbey. A second play, Love and Fashion, was actually put in rehearsal in 1799, but was withdrawn in the next year. In 1801 Madame D’Arblay accompanied her husband to Paris, where General D’Arblay eventually obtained a place in the civil service. In 1812 she returned to England, bringing with her her son Alexandre to escape the conscription. In 1814 she published The Wanderer; or Female Difficulties. Possibly because readers expected to find a description of her impressions of revolutionary France, it had a large sale, from which the author realized £7000. Nobody, it has been said, ever read The Wanderer. In the end of the year General D’Arblay came to England and took his wife back to France. During the Hundred Days of 1815 she was in Belgium, and the vivid account in her Diary of Brussels during Waterloo may have been used by Thackeray in Vanity Fair. General D’Arblay now received permission to settle in England. After his death, which took place at Bath on the 3rd of May 1818, his wife lived in Bolton Street, Piccadilly. There she was visited in 1826 by Sir Walter Scott, who describes her (Journal, November 18th, 1826) as an elderly lady with no remains of personal beauty, but with a gentle manner and a pleasing countenance. The later years of her life were occupied with the editing of the Memoirs of Dr Burney, arranged from his own Manuscripts, from family papers and from personal recollections (3 vols., 1832). Her style had, as time went on, altered for the worse, and this book is full of extraordinary affectations. Madame D’Arblay died in London on the 6th of January 1840 and was buried at Walcot, Bath, near her son and husband.

In 1792, she met a group of French exiles who had taken a house called Juniper Hall near Mickleham, where Fanny’s sister, Mrs. Phillips, lived. On July 31, 1793, she married one of the exiles, Alexandre D’Arblay, an artillery officer who had been adjutant-general to La Fayette. They rented a cottage in Bookham, apparently relying on Miss Burney’s pension. In 1793, she published her Brief Reflections relative to the Emigrant French Clergy. Her son Alexandre was born on December 18, 1794. The following spring, 828 Sheridan staged her play Edwy and Elgiva at Drury Lane, a tragedy that even the performances by the Kembles and Mrs. Siddons couldn’t save. The play was never printed. Financial concerns became serious, leading Madame D’Arblay to publish her next novel, Camilla: or A Picture of Youth (5 vols., 1796), by subscription. A month after its release, Dr. Burney informed Horace Walpole that his daughter had made £2000 from the book, and this amount likely increased later. Interestingly, Jane Austen was among the subscribers. Unfortunately, its literary acclaim was not as significant. “How I like Camilla?” Walpole wrote to Miss Hannah More on August 29, 1796, “I do not care to say how little. Alas! she has reversed experience ... this author knew the world and understood characters before she had even stepped outside; and now that she has seen so much of it, she has little or no insight at all: perhaps she felt she had seen too much and kept the bags of foul air she brought from the Cave of Tempests too tightly tied.” Nevertheless, Camilla found sensible admirers, notably Jane Austen in Northanger Abbey. A second play, Love and Fashion, was actually rehearsed in 1799 but was withdrawn the following year. In 1801, Madame D’Arblay accompanied her husband to Paris, where General D’Arblay eventually secured a position in the civil service. In 1812, she returned to England with her son Alexandre to avoid conscription. In 1814, she published The Wanderer; or Female Difficulties. Possibly because readers expected a portrayal of her impressions of revolutionary France, it sold well, earning the author £7000. It has been said that nobody ever actually read The Wanderer. By the end of the year, General D’Arblay returned to England and took his wife back to France. During the Hundred Days of 1815, she was in Belgium, and the vivid account in her Diary of Brussels during Waterloo may have been used by Thackeray in Vanity Fair. General D’Arblay was later granted permission to settle in England. After his death on May 3, 1818, in Bath, his wife lived on Bolton Street, Piccadilly. There, she was visited in 1826 by Sir Walter Scott, who described her in his Journal on November 18, 1826, as an elderly lady with no traces of past beauty, but with a gentle manner and a pleasing appearance. In her later years, she focused on editing the Memoirs of Dr Burney, arranged from his own Manuscripts, from family papers and from personal recollections (3 vols., 1832). Over time, her writing style had unfortunately declined, and this book is filled with notable affectations. Madame D’Arblay passed away in London on January 6, 1840, and was buried at Walcot, Bath, near her son and husband.

Madame D’Arblay is still read in Evelina, but her best title to the affections of modern readers is the Diary and Letters. The small egotisms of the writer do not alienate other readers as they did John Wilson Croker. Dr Johnson lives in its pages almost as vividly as in those of Boswell, and King George and his wife in a friendlier light than in most of their contemporary portraits. Croker, in The Quarterly Review, April 1833 and June 1842, made two attacks on Madame D’Arblay. The first is an unfriendly but largely justifiable criticism on the Memoirs of Dr Burney. In the second, a review of the first three volumes of the Diary and Letters, Croker abused the writer’s innocent vanity, and declared that, considering their bulk and pretensions, the Diary and Letters were “nearly the most worthless we have ever waded through.” These pronouncements drew forth the eloquent defence by Lord Macaulay, first printed in The Edinburgh Review, January 1843, which, in spite of some inaccuracies and considerable exaggeration, has perhaps done more than anything else to maintain Madame D’Arblay’s constant popularity.

Madame D’Arblay is still read in Evelina, but her strongest claim on the hearts of modern readers is the Diary and Letters. The author's minor self-centeredness doesn't drive readers away as it did John Wilson Croker. Dr. Johnson comes alive in its pages almost as much as in Boswell's work, and King George and his wife are portrayed in a friendlier light than in most of their contemporary representations. Croker, in The Quarterly Review, April 1833 and June 1842, made two attacks on Madame D’Arblay. The first is an unfriendly but largely justifiable critique of the Memoirs of Dr Burney. In the second, a review of the first three volumes of the Diary and Letters, Croker criticized the author's innocent vanity and claimed that, given their size and pretensions, the Diary and Letters were “nearly the most worthless we have ever waded through.” These comments prompted an eloquent defense by Lord Macaulay, first published in The Edinburgh Review, January 1843, which, despite some inaccuracies and significant exaggeration, has likely contributed more than anything else to keeping Madame D’Arblay’s enduring popularity alive.

Bibliography.—The Diary and Letters of Madame D’Arblay was edited by her niece, Charlotte Frances Barrett, in 7 vols. (1842-1846). The text, covering the years 1778-1840, was edited with preface, notes and reproductions of contemporary portraits and other illustrations, by Mr Austin Dobson in 6 vols. (1904-1905). This Diary, which begins with the publication of Evelina, was supplemented in 1889 by The Early Diary of Frances Burney (1768-1778), which was in the first instance suppressed as being of purely private interest, edited by Mrs Annie Raine Ellis, with an introduction giving many particulars of the Burney family. Mrs Ellis also edited Evelina for “Bohn’s Novelist’s Library” in 1881, and Cecilia in 1882. See also Austin Dobson’s Fanny Burney (Madame D’Arblay) (1903), in the “English Men of Letters Series.”

References.—The Diary and Letters of Madame D’Arblay was edited by her niece, Charlotte Frances Barrett, in 7 volumes (1842-1846). The text, covering the years 1778-1840, was edited with a preface, notes, and reproductions of contemporary portraits and other illustrations by Mr. Austin Dobson in 6 volumes (1904-1905). This Diary, which starts with the publication of Evelina, was supplemented in 1889 by The Early Diary of Frances Burney (1768-1778), which was initially kept private due to its personal nature, edited by Mrs. Annie Raine Ellis, who provided an introduction with many details about the Burney family. Mrs. Ellis also edited Evelina for “Bohn’s Novelist’s Library” in 1881, and Cecilia in 1882. See also Austin Dobson’s Fanny Burney (Madame D’Arblay) (1903) in the “English Men of Letters Series.”


1 His letters to Mrs Gast and another sister, Anne, were edited with the title of Burford Papers (1906), by W. H. Hutton.

1 His letters to Mrs. Gast and another sister, Anne, were compiled under the title Burford Papers (1906) by W. H. Hutton.


DARBOY, GEORGES (1813-1871), archbishop of Paris, was born at Fayl-Billot in Haute Marne on the 16th of January 1813. He studied with distinction at the seminary at Langres, and was ordained priest in 1836. Transferred to Paris as almoner of the college of Henry IV., and honorary canon of Notre Dame, he became the close friend of Archbishop Affre and of his successor Archbishop Sibour. He was appointed bishop of Nancy in 1859, and in January 1863 was raised to the archbishopric of Paris. The archbishop was a strenuous upholder of episcopal independence in the Gallican sense, and involved himself in a controversy with Rome by his endeavours to suppress the jurisdiction of the Jesuits and other religious orders within his diocese. Pius IX. refused him the cardinal’s hat, and rebuked him for his liberalism in a letter which was probably not intended for publication. At the Vatican council he vigorously maintained the rights of the bishops, and strongly opposed the dogma of papal infallibility, against which he voted as inopportune. When the dogma had been finally adopted, however, he was one of the first to set the example of submission. Immediately after his return to Paris the war with Prussia broke out, and his conduct during the disastrous year that followed was marked by a devoted heroism which has secured for him an enduring fame. He was active in organizing relief for the wounded at the commencement of the war, remained bravely at his post during the siege, and refused to seek safety by flight during the brief triumph of the Commune. On the 4th of April 1871 he was arrested by the communists as a hostage, and confined in the prison at Mazas, from which he was transferred to La Roquette on the advance of the army of Versailles. On the 27th of May he was shot within the prison along with several other distinguished hostages. He died in the attitude of blessing and uttering words of forgiveness. His body was recovered with difficulty, and, having been embalmed, was buried with imposing ceremony at the public expense on the 7th of June. It is a noteworthy fact that Darboy was the third archbishop of Paris who perished by violence in the period between 1848 and 1871. Darboy was the author of a number of works, of which the most important are a Vie de St Thomas Becket (1859), a translation of the works of St Denis the Areopagite, and a translation of the Imitation of Christ.

DARBOY, GEORGES (1813-1871), archbishop of Paris, was born in Fayl-Billot, High fashion Marne, on January 16, 1813. He studied exceptionally at the seminary in Langres and was ordained as a priest in 1836. He was transferred to Paris as the almoner of the College of Henry IV and served as an honorary canon of Notre Dame, becoming close friends with Archbishop Affre and his successor, Archbishop Sibour. He was appointed bishop of Nancy in 1859 and became the archbishop of Paris in January 1863. The archbishop strongly supported episcopal independence in the Gallican tradition and got involved in a controversy with Rome over his efforts to limit the jurisdiction of the Jesuits and other religious orders in his diocese. Pius IX denied him the cardinal’s hat and criticized him for his liberal views in a letter likely not meant for public release. At the Vatican Council, he actively defended the rights of bishops and opposed the dogma of papal infallibility, voting against it as inappropriate. However, when the dogma was finally accepted, he was one of the first to show submission. Soon after his return to Paris, the war with Prussia began, and his actions during the following disastrous year were marked by devoted heroism, earning him lasting fame. He worked to organize relief for the wounded at the start of the war, remained courageously at his post during the siege, and refused to escape during the fleeting success of the Commune. On April 4, 1871, he was arrested by communists as a hostage and imprisoned in Mazas, later moved to La Roquette as the Versailles army advanced. On May 27, he was executed in jail along with several other prominent hostages. He died in a position of blessing, speaking words of forgiveness. His body was retrieved with difficulty, embalmed, and buried with great ceremony at public expense on June 7. It's notable that Darboy was the third archbishop of Paris to die violently between 1848 and 1871. Darboy authored several works, the most significant being a Vie de St Thomas Becket (1859), a translation of the works of St Denis the Areopagite, and a translation of the Imitation of Christ.

See J. A. Foulon, Histoire de la vie et des œuvres de Mgr. Darboy (Paris, 1889), and J. Guillermin, Vie de Mgr. Darboy (Paris, 1888), biographies written from the clerical standpoint, which have called forth a number of pamphlets in reply.

See J. A. Foulon, Histoire de la vie et des œuvres de Mgr. Darboy (Paris, 1889), and J. Guillermin, Vie de Mgr. Darboy (Paris, 1888), biographies written from the clerical perspective, which have prompted a number of pamphlets in response.


DARCY, THOMAS DARCY, Baron (1467-1537), English soldier, was a son of Sir William Darcy (d. 1488), and belonged to a family which was seated at Templehurst in Yorkshire. In early life he served, both as a soldier and a diplomatist, in Scotland and on the Scottish borders, where he was captain of Berwick; and in 1505, having been created Baron Darcy, he was made warden of the east marches towards Scotland. In 1511 Darcy led some troops to Spain to help Ferdinand and Isabella against the Moors, but he returned almost at once to England, and was with Henry VIII. on his French campaign two years later. One of the most influential noblemen in the north of England, where he held several important offices, Darcy was also a member of the royal council, dividing his time between state duties in London and a more active life in the north. He showed great zeal in preparing accusations against his former friend, Cardinal Wolsey; however, after the cardinal’s fall his words and actions caused him to be suspected by Henry VIII. Disliking the separation from Rome, Darcy asserted that matrimonial cases were matters for the decision of the spiritual power, and he was soon communicating with Eustace Chapuys, the ambassador of the emperor Charles V., about an invasion of England in the interests of the Roman Catholics. Detained in London against his will by the king, he was not allowed to return to Yorkshire until late in 1535, and about a year after his arrival in the north the rising known as the Pilgrimage of Grace broke out. For a short time Darcy defended Pontefract Castle against the rebels, but soon 829 he surrendered to them this stronghold, which he could certainly have held a little longer, and was with them at Doncaster, being regarded as one of their leaders. Upon the dispersal of the insurgents Darcy was pardoned, but he pleaded illness when Henry requested him to proceed to London. He may have assisted to suppress the rising which was renewed under Sir Francis Bigod early in 1537, but the king believed, probably with good reason, that he was guilty of fresh treasons, and he was seized and hurried to London. During his imprisonment he uttered his famous remark about Thomas Cromwell:—“Cromwell, it is thou that art the very original and chief causer of all this rebellion and mischief, ... and I trust that or thou die, though thou wouldst procure all the noblemen’s heads within the realm to be stricken off, yet shall there one head remain that shall strike off thy head.” Tried by his peers, Darcy was found guilty of treason, and was beheaded on the 20th of June 1537. In 1548 his barony was revived in favour of his son George (d. 1557), but it became extinct on the death of George’s descendant John in 1635.

DARCY, THOMAS DARCY, Baron (1467-1537), an English soldier, was the son of Sir William Darcy (d. 1488) and came from a family based in Templehurst, Yorkshire. In his early years, he served as both a soldier and a diplomat in Scotland and along the Scottish borders, where he was captain of Berwick. In 1505, after being made Baron Darcy, he became the warden of the eastern marches toward Scotland. In 1511, Darcy took troops to Spain to assist Ferdinand and Isabella against the Moors, but returned to England soon after and joined Henry VIII on his French campaign two years later. As one of the most influential noblemen in northern England, where he held several key positions, Darcy was also part of the royal council, splitting his time between state responsibilities in London and an active role in the north. He was very eager to prepare charges against his former friend, Cardinal Wolsey; however, after the cardinal fell from favor, Darcy’s words and actions led Henry VIII to suspect him. Opposing the break from Rome, Darcy argued that marriage cases should be settled by spiritual authorities, and he soon began communicating with Eustace Chapuys, the ambassador for Emperor Charles V, about possible invasions of England to support Roman Catholics. Kept in London against his will by the king, he wasn’t allowed to return to Yorkshire until late in 1535, and shortly after he got back, the rebellion known as the Pilgrimage of Grace began. For a brief period, Darcy defended Pontefract Castle against the rebels, but eventually surrendered the stronghold, which he could have held a bit longer, and joined them at Doncaster, being seen as one of their leaders. When the insurgents dispersed, Darcy was pardoned but claimed he was too ill when Henry called him to London. He might have helped suppress the renewed uprising under Sir Francis Bigod in early 1537, but the king suspected, likely with good reason, that he was guilty of new betrayals, and he was arrested and rushed to London. During his imprisonment, he famously remarked about Thomas Cromwell: “Cromwell, it is you who are the original and chief cause of all this rebellion and trouble... and I trust that before you die, even if you manage to have all the noblemen’s heads in the realm executed, there will still be one head remaining that will take yours off.” Tried by his peers, Darcy was found guilty of treason and was executed on June 20, 1537. In 1548, his barony was revived for his son George (d. 1557), but it became extinct when George's descendant John died in 1635.


DARDANELLES (Turk. Bahr-Sefed Boghazi), the strait, in ancient times called the Hellespont (q.v.), uniting the Sea of Marmora with the Aegean, so called from the two castles which protect the narrowest part and preserve the name of the city of Dardanus in the Troad, famous for the treaty between Sulla and Mithradates in 84 B.C. The shores of the strait are formed by the peninsula of Gallipoli on the N.W. and by the mainland of Asia Minor on the S.E.; it extends for a distance of about 47 m. with an average breadth of 3 or 4 m. At the Aegean extremity stand the castles of Sedil Bahr and Kum Kaleh respectively in Europe and Asia; and near the Marmora extremity are situated the important town of Gallipoli (Callipolis) on the northern side, and the less important though equally famous Lamsaki or Lapsaki (Lampsacus) on the southern. The two castles of the Dardanelles par excellence are Chanak-Kalehsi, Sultanieh-Kalehsi, or the Old Castle of Anatolia, and Kilid-Bahr, or the Old Castle of Rumelia, which were long but erroneously identified with Sestos and Abydos now located farther to the north. The strait of the Dardanelles is famous in history for the passage of Xerxes by means of a bridge of boats, and for the similar exploit on the part of Alexander. It is famous also from the story of Hero and Leander, and from Lord Byron’s successful attempt (repeated by others) to rival the ancient swimmer. Strategically the Dardanelles is a point of great importance, since it commands the approach to Constantinople from the Mediterranean. The passage of the strait is easily defended, but in 1807 the English admiral (Sir) J. T. Duckworth made his way past all the fortresses into the Sea of Marmora. The treaty of July 1841, confirmed by the Paris peace of 1856, prescribed that no foreign ship of war might enter the strait except by Turkish permission, and even merchant vessels are only allowed to pass the castle of Chanak-Kalehsi during the day.

Dardanelles (Turk. Bahr-Sefed Boghazi) is the strait, which in ancient times was called the Hellespont (q.v.), connecting the Sea of Marmora with the Aegean. It's named after the two castles that guard the narrowest part and carry the name of the city of Dardanus in the Troad, well-known for the treaty between Sulla and Mithradates in 84 B.C. The shores of the strait are bordered by the Gallipoli peninsula to the northwest and the mainland of Asia Minor to the southeast; it stretches about 47 miles with an average width of 3 or 4 miles. At the Aegean end are the castles of Sedil Bahr and Kum Kaleh, respectively in Europe and Asia; close to the Marmora end are the significant town of Gallipoli (Callipolis) on the northern side and the less significant but still famous Lamsaki or Lapsaki (Lampsacus) on the southern side. The two main castles of the Dardanelles are Chanak-Kalehsi, Sultanieh-Kalehsi, or the Old Castle of Anatolia, and Kilid-Bahr, or the Old Castle of Rumelia, which were long mistakenly identified with Sestos and Abydos, now located farther north. The strait of the Dardanelles is historically significant for Xerxes’ crossing via a bridge of boats, and for Alexander’s similar feat. It's also known from the tale of Hero and Leander, and from Lord Byron’s successful attempt (later matched by others) to emulate the ancient swimmer. Strategically, the Dardanelles is crucial as it controls access to Constantinople from the Mediterranean. The passage of the strait can be easily defended, yet in 1807, English admiral (Sir) J. T. Duckworth managed to get past all the fortresses into the Sea of Marmora. The treaty of July 1841, confirmed by the Paris peace of 1856, established that no foreign warship could enter the strait without Turkish permission, and even merchant vessels are only allowed to pass the Chanak-Kalehsi castle during the day.

See Choiseul-Gouffier, Voyage pittoresque (Paris, 1842); Murray’s Handbook for Constantinople (London, 1900).

See Choiseul-Gouffier, Picturesque Voyage (Paris, 1842); Murray’s Guide to Constantinople (London, 1900).


DARDANELLES (Turk. Sultanieh Kalehsi, or Chanak Kalehsi), the chief town and seat of government of the lesser Turkish province of Bigha, Asia Minor. It is situated at the mouth of the Rhodius, and at the narrowest part of the strait of the Dardanelles, where its span is but a mile across. Its recent growth has been rapid, and it possesses a lyceum, a military hospital, a public garden, a theatre, quays and water-works. Exclusive of the garrison, the population is estimated at 13,000, of whom one-half are Turkish, and the remainder Greek, Jewish, Armenian and European. The town contains many mosques, Greek, Armenian and Catholic churches, and a synagogue. There is a resident Greek bishop. The civil governor, and the military commandants of the numerous fortresses on each side of the strait, are stationed here. Many important works have been added to the defences. The Ottoman fleet is stationed at Nagara (anc. Abydos). The average annual number of merchant vessels passing the strait is 12,000 and the regular commercial vessels calling at the port of Dardanelles are represented by numerous foreign agencies. Besides the Turkish telegraph service, the Eastern Telegraph Company has a station at Dardanelles, and there are Turkish, Austrian, French and Russian post offices. The import trade consists of manufactures, sugar, flour, coffee, rice, leather and iron. The export trade consists of valonia (largely produced in the province), wheat, barley, beans, chickpeas, canary seed, liquorice root, pine and oak timber, wine and pottery. Excepting in the items of wine and pottery, the export trade shows steady increase. Every year sees a larger area of land brought under cultivation by immigrants, and adds to the number of mature (i.e. fruit-bearing) valonia trees. Vine-growers are discouraged by heavy fiscal charges, and by the low price of wine; many have uprooted their vineyards. The pottery trade is affected by change of fashion, and the factories are losing their importance. The lower quarters of the town were heavily damaged in the winter of 1900-1901 by repeated inundations caused by the overflow of the Rhodius.

Dardanelles (Turk. Sultanieh Kalehsi, or Chanak Kalehsi), the main town and government center of the smaller Turkish province of Bigha in Asia Minor. It's located at the mouth of the Rhodius River, at the narrowest point of the Dardanelles Strait, where it's just a mile wide. The town has grown rapidly in recent years and features a lyceum, a military hospital, a public garden, a theater, docks, and water facilities. Excluding the military personnel, the population is estimated at 13,000, with half being Turkish and the other half Greek, Jewish, Armenian, and European. The town hosts many mosques, Greek, Armenian, and Catholic churches, and a synagogue. There's a resident Greek bishop. The civil governor and the military leaders of the various fortresses on either side of the strait are based here. Significant improvements have been made to the defenses. The Ottoman fleet is stationed at Nagara (anc. Abydos). On average, about 12,000 merchant vessels pass through the strait each year, and numerous foreign agencies represent regular commercial ships that call at the port of Dardanelles. In addition to the Turkish telegraph service, the Eastern Telegraph Company has a station in Dardanelles, and there are post offices from Turkey, Austria, France, and Russia. The import trade includes manufactured goods, sugar, flour, coffee, rice, leather, and iron. The export trade consists of valonia (produced mainly in the province), wheat, barley, beans, chickpeas, canary seed, liquorice root, pine and oak timber, wine, and pottery. Except for wine and pottery, the export trade has been steadily increasing. Each year, more land is cultivated by immigrants, leading to a higher number of mature valonia trees. Vine-growers are discouraged by high taxes and the low price of wine; many have removed their vineyards. The pottery trade is affected by changing trends, and the factories are losing their significance. The lower parts of the town suffered severe damage during the winter of 1900-1901 due to repeated flooding from the overflowing Rhodius River.

See V. Cuinet, Turquie d’Asie (Paris, 1890-1900).

See V. Cuinet, *Turkey in Asia* (Paris, 1890-1900).


DARDANUS, in Greek legend, son of Zeus and Electra, the mythical founder of Dardanus on the Hellespont and ancestor of the Dardans of the Troad and, through Aeneas, of the Romans. His original home was supposed to have been Arcadia, where he married Chryse, who brought him as dowry the Palladium or image of Pallas, presented to her by the goddess herself. Having slain his brother Iasius or Iasion (according to others, Iasius was struck by lightning), Dardanus fled across the sea. He first stopped at Samothrace, and when the island was visited by a flood, crossed over to the Troad. Being hospitably received by Teucer, he married his daughter Batea and became the founder of the royal house of Troy.

DARDANUS, in Greek mythology, was the son of Zeus and Electra, the legendary founder of Dardanus on the Hellespont and the ancestor of the Dardans of the Troad and, through Aeneas, of the Romans. His original home was believed to be Arcadia, where he married Chryse, who brought him the Palladium, an image of Pallas, given to her by the goddess herself as a dowry. After killing his brother Iasius or Iasion (some say Iasius was struck by lightning), Dardanus fled across the sea. He first landed at Samothrace, and when the island was hit by a flood, he moved to the Troad. Welcomed by Teucer, he married his daughter Batea and became the founder of the royal house of Troy.

See Apollodorus iii. 12; Diod. Sic. v. 48-75; Virgil, Aeneid, iii. 163 ff.; articles in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie and Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie.

See Apollodorus iii. 12; Diod. Sic. v. 48-75; Virgil, Aeneid, iii. 163 ff.; articles in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie and Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie.


DARDISTAN, a purely conventional name given by scientists to a tract of country on the north-west frontier of India. There is no modern race called Dards, and no country so named by its inhabitants, but the inhabitants of the right bank of the Indus, from the Kandia river to Batera, apply it to the dwellers on the left bank. In the scientific use of the appellation, Dardistan comprises the whole of Chitral, Yasin, Panyal, the Gilgit valley, Hunza and Nagar, the Astor valley, the Indus valley from Bunji to Batera, the Kohistan-Malazai, i.e. the upper reaches of the Panjkora river, and the Kohistan of Swat. The so-called Dard races are referred to by Pliny and Ptolemy, and are supposed to be a people of Aryan origin who ascended the Indus valley from the plains of the Punjab, reaching as far north as Chitral, where they dispossessed the Khos. They have left their traces in the different dialects, Khoswar, Burishki and Shina, spoken in the Gilgit agency.

Dardistan, is a purely conventional name invented by scientists for a region on the north-west frontier of India. There is no modern group called Dards, and the locals don’t refer to their country by that name, but the people on the right bank of the Indus, from the Kandia river to Batera, use it for those who live on the left bank. In scientific terms, Dardistan includes all of Chitral, Yasin, Panyal, the Gilgit valley, Hunza and Nagar, the Astor valley, and the Indus valley from Bunji to Batera, plus the Kohistan-Malazai, which are the upper reaches of the Panjkora river, and the Kohistan of Swat. The so-called Dard races are mentioned by Pliny and Ptolemy and are thought to be a people of Aryan descent who moved up the Indus valley from the Punjab plains, reaching as far north as Chitral, where they took over the land from the Khos. Their influence is still evident in the different dialects—Khoswar, Burishki, and Shina—spoken in the Gilgit agency.

The question of Dardistan is debated at length in Leitner’s Dardistan (1877); Drew’s Jummoo and Kashmir Territories (1875); Biddulph’s Tribes of the Hindu-Kush (1880) and Durand’s The Making of a Frontier (1899). For further details see Gilgit.

The question of Dardistan is discussed in detail in Leitner’s Dardistan (1877); Drew’s Jummoo and Kashmir Territories (1875); Biddulph’s Tribes of the Hindu-Kush (1880) and Durand’s The Making of a Frontier (1899). For more information, see Gilgit.


DARES PHRYGIUS, according to Homer (Iliad, v. 9) a Trojan priest of Hephaestus. He was supposed to have been the author of an account of the destruction of Troy, and to have lived before Homer (Aelian, Var. Hist. xi. 2). A work in Latin, purporting to be a translation of this, and entitled Daretis Phrygii de excidio Trojae historia, was much read in the middle ages, and was then ascribed to Cornelius Nepos, who is made to dedicate it to Sallust; but the language is extremely corrupt, and the work belongs to a period much later than the time of Nepos (probably the 5th century A.D.). It is doubtful whether the work as we have it is an abridgment of a larger Latin work or an adaptation of a Greek original. Together with the similar work of Dictys Cretensis (with which it is generally printed) the De excidio forms the chief source for the numerous middle age accounts of the Trojan legend. (See Dictys; and O. S. von Fleschenberg, Daresstudien, 1908.)

DARES PHRYGIUS, according to Homer (Iliad, v. 9), was a Trojan priest of Hephaestus. He is believed to have written an account of the destruction of Troy and to have lived before Homer (Aelian, Var. Hist. xi. 2). A Latin work claiming to be a translation of this, titled Daretis Phrygii de excidio Trojae historia, was widely read in the Middle Ages and was credited to Cornelius Nepos, who supposedly dedicated it to Sallust; however, the language is highly corrupted, and the work dates from a time much later than Nepos (likely the 5th century A.D.). It's uncertain whether the version we have is a shortened form of a larger Latin text or an adaptation of a Greek original. Alongside the similar work of Dictys Cretensis (which is usually published together with it), the De excidio serves as a primary source for many medieval accounts of the Trojan legend. (See Dictys; and O. S. von Fleschenberg, Daresstudien, 1908.)


DAR-ES-SALAAM (“The harbour of peace”), a seaport of East Africa, in 6° 50′ S. 39° 20′ E., capital of German East Africa. Pop. (1909) estimated at 24,000, including some 500 Europeans. The entrance to the harbor, which is perfectly sheltered (hence its name), is through a narrow opening in the palm-covered shore. The harbour is provided with a floating dock, completed in 1902. The town is built on the northern 830 sweep of the harbour and is European in character. The streets are wide and regularly laid out. The public buildings, which are large and handsome, include the government and customs offices on the quay opposite the spot where the mail boats anchor, the governor’s house, state hospital, post office, and the Boma or barracks. Adjoining the governor’s residence are the botanical gardens, where many European plants are tested with a view to acclimatization. There are various churches, and government and mission schools. In the town are the head offices of the Deutsch-Ostafrikanische Gesellschaft, the largest trading company in German East Africa. The mangrove swamps at the north-west end of the harbour have been drained and partially built over.

DAR ES SALAAM (“The harbor of peace”), a seaport in East Africa, located at 6° 50′ S. 39° 20′ E., is the capital of German East Africa. The population in 1909 was estimated at 24,000, including around 500 Europeans. The entrance to the harbor, which is completely sheltered (hence its name), is through a narrow opening in the palm-covered shoreline. The harbor has a floating dock that was completed in 1902. The town is situated on the northern830 curve of the harbor and has a European vibe. The streets are wide and laid out in an organized manner. The public buildings are large and attractive, including the government and customs offices located on the quay opposite where the mail boats dock, the governor’s residence, a state hospital, a post office, and the Boma or barracks. Next to the governor’s house are the botanical gardens, where many European plants are tested for acclimatization. There are several churches, along with government and mission schools. The town also hosts the head offices of the Deutsch-Ostafrikanische Gesellschaft, the largest trading company in German East Africa. The mangrove swamps at the northwest end of the harbor have been drained and partially developed.

Until the German occupation nothing but an insignificant village existed at Dar-es-Salaam. In 1862 Said Majid, sultan of Zanzibar, decided to build a town on the shores of the bay, and began the erection of a palace, which was never finished, and of which but scanty ruins remain. In 1871 Said Majid died, and his scheme was abandoned. In 1876 Mr (afterwards Sir) William McKinnon began the construction of a road from Dar-es-Salaam to Victoria Nyanza, intending to make of Dar-es-Salaam an important seaport. This project however failed. In 1887 Dr Carl Peters occupied the bay in the name of the German East Africa Company. Fighting with the Arabs followed, and in 1889 the company handed over their settlement to the German imperial government. In 1891 the town was made the administrative capital of the colony. It is the starting point of a railway to Mrogoro, and is connected by overland telegraph via Ujiji with South Africa. A submarine cable connects the town with Zanzibar. Dar-es-Salaam was laid out by the Germans on an ambitious scale in the expectation that it would prove an important centre of commerce, but trade developed very slowly. Ivory, rubber and copal are the chief exports. The trade returns are included in those of German East Africa (q.v.).

Until the German occupation, Dar-es-Salaam was just a small village. In 1862, Said Majid, the sultan of Zanzibar, decided to build a town along the bay and started constructing a palace that was never completed, leaving only a few ruins behind. Said Majid passed away in 1871, and his plans were abandoned. In 1876, Mr. (later Sir) William McKinnon began building a road from Dar-es-Salaam to Victoria Nyanza, aiming to turn Dar-es-Salaam into a key seaport. However, this project did not succeed. In 1887, Dr. Carl Peters claimed the bay for the German East Africa Company. This led to conflicts with the Arabs, and by 1889, the company passed their settlement to the German imperial government. In 1891, the town became the administrative capital of the colony. It is the starting point of a railway to Mrogoro and is linked by overland telegraph through Ujiji to South Africa. A submarine cable connects the town to Zanzibar. The Germans developed Dar-es-Salaam on a grand scale, anticipating it would become a major commercial hub, but trade grew very slowly. The main exports are ivory, rubber, and copal. Trade figures are included in those of German East Africa (q.v.).


DARESTE DE LA CHAVANNE, ANTOINE ELISABETH CLÉOPHAS (1820-1882), French historian, was born in Paris on the 28th of October 1820, of an old Lyons family. Educated at the École des Chartes, he became professor in the faculty of letters at Grenoble in 1844, and in 1849 at Lyons, where he remained nearly thirty years. He died on the 6th of August 1882. His works comprise: Histoire de l’administration en France depuis Philippe-Auguste (2 vols., 1848); Histoire des classes agricoles en France depuis saint Louis jusqu’à Louis XVI (2 vols., 1853 and 1858), now quite obsolete; and a Histoire de France (8 vols., 1865-1873), completed by a Histoire de la Restauration (2 vols., 1880), a good summary of the work of Veil-Castel, and by a Histoire du Gouvernement de Juillet, a dry enumeration of dates and facts. Before the publication of Lavisse’s great work, Dareste’s general history of France was the best of its kind; it surpassed in accuracy the work of Henri Martin, especially in the ancient periods, just as Martin’s in its turn was an improvement upon that of Sismondi.

DARESTE DE LA CHAVANNE, ANTOINE ELISABETH CLÉOPHAS (1820-1882), was a French historian born in Paris on October 28, 1820, into an old family from Lyons. He studied at the École des Chartes and became a professor in the faculty of letters at Grenoble in 1844, then at Lyons in 1849, where he taught for nearly thirty years. He passed away on August 6, 1882. His works include: Histoire de l’administration en France depuis Philippe-Auguste (2 vols., 1848); Histoire des classes agricoles en France depuis saint Louis jusqu’à Louis XVI (2 vols., 1853 and 1858), which is now quite outdated; and a Histoire de France (8 vols., 1865-1873), followed by a Histoire de la Restauration (2 vols., 1880), a solid summary of the work of Veil-Castel, and a Histoire du Gouvernement de Juillet, which is a dry list of dates and facts. Before Lavisse published his major work, Dareste’s general history of France was the best available; it was more accurate than Henri Martin's work, especially regarding ancient periods, just as Martin's was an improvement over Sismondi's.


DARESTE DE LA CHAVANNE, RODOLPHE MADELEINE CLÉOPHAS (1824-  ), French jurist, was born in Paris on the 25th of December 1824. He studied at the École des Chartes and the École de Droit, and starting early on a legal career he rose to be counsellor to the court of cassation (1877 to 1900). His first publication was an Essai sur François Hotman (1850), completed later by his publication of Hotman’s correspondence in the Revue historique (1876), and he devoted the whole of his leisure to legal history. Of his writings may be mentioned Les Anciennes Lois de l’Islande (1881); Mémoire sur les anciens monuments du droit de la Hongrie (1885), and Études d’histoire du droit (1889). On Greek law he wrote some notable works: Du prêt à la grosse chez les Athéniens (1867); Les Inscriptions hypothécaires en Grèce (1885), La Science du droit en Grèce: Platon, Aristote, Thêophraste (1893), and Étude sur la loi de Gortyne (1885). He collaborated with Théodore Reinach and B. Haussoullier in their Recueil des inscriptions juridiques grecques (1905), and his name is worthily associated with the edition of Philippe de Beaumanoir’s Coutumes de Beauvaisis, published by Salmon (2 vols., 1899, 1900).

DARESTE DE LA CHAVANNE, RODOLPHE MADELEINE CLÉOPHAS (1824-  ), a French jurist, was born in Paris on December 25, 1824. He studied at the École des Chartes and the École de Droit, and began his legal career early on, eventually becoming a counselor at the court of cassation from 1877 to 1900. His first publication was an Essai sur François Hotman (1850), which he later expanded with Hotman’s correspondence in the Revue historique (1876), dedicating all his free time to legal history. Notable works include Les Anciennes Lois de l’Islande (1881); Mémoire sur les anciens monuments du droit de la Hongrie (1885); and Études d’histoire du droit (1889). He also wrote important texts on Greek law, such as Du prêt à la grosse chez les Athéniens (1867); Les Inscriptions hypothécaires en Grèce (1885); La Science du droit en Grèce: Platon, Aristote, Thêophraste (1893); and Étude sur la loi de Gortyne (1885). He collaborated with Théodore Reinach and B. Haussoullier on the Recueil des inscriptions juridiques grecques (1905), and his name is rightly associated with the edition of Philippe de Beaumanoir’s Coutumes de Beauvaisis, published by Salmon (2 vols., 1899, 1900).


DARFUR, a country of east central Africa, the westernmost state of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. It extends from about 10° N. to 16° N. and from 21° E. to 27° 30′ E., has an area of some 150,000 sq. m., and an estimated population of 750,000. It is bounded N. by the Libyan desert, W. by Wadai (French Congo), S. by the Bahr-el-Ghazal and E. by Kordofan. The two last-named districts are mudirias (provinces) of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. The greater part of the country is a plateau from 2000 to 3000 ft. above sea-level. A range of mountains of volcanic origin, the Jebel Marra, runs N. and S. about the line of the 24° E. for a distance of over 100 m., its highest points attaining from 5000 to 6000 ft. East to west this chain extends about 80 m. Eastward the mountains fall gradually into sandy, bush-covered steppes. North-east of Jebel Marra lies the Jebel Medob (3500 ft. high), a range much distorted by volcanic action, and Bir-el-Melh, an extinct volcano with a crater 150 ft. deep. South of Jebel Marra are the plains of Dar Dima and Dar Uma; S.W. of the Marra the plain is 4000 ft. above the sea. The watershed separating the basins of the Nile and Lake Chad runs north and south through the centre of the country. The mountains are scored by numerous khors, whose lower courses can be traced across the tableland. The khors formerly contained large rivers which flowed N.E. and E. to the Nile, W. and S.W. to Lake Chad, S. and S.E. to the Bahr-el-Ghazal. The streams going N.E. drain to the Wadi Melh, a dry river-bed which joins the Nile near Debba, but on reaching the plain the waters sink into the sandy soil and disappear. The torrents flowing directly east towards the Nile also disappear in the sandy deserts. The khors in the W., S.W. and S.,—the most fertile part of Darfur—contain turbulent torrents in the rainy season, when much of the southern district is flooded. Not one of the streams is perennial, but in times of heavy rainfall the waters of some khors reach the Bahr-el-Homr tributary of the Bahr-el-Ghazal. (For some 200 m. the Bahr-el-Homr marks the southern frontier of the country.) In the W. and S. water can always be obtained in the dry season by digging 5 or 6 ft. below the surface of the khors.

DARFUR, is a region in east central Africa, the westernmost part of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. It stretches from about 10° N. to 16° N. and from 21° E. to 27° 30′ E., covering around 150,000 square miles, with an estimated population of 750,000. It is bordered to the north by the Libyan desert, to the west by Wadai (French Congo), to the south by Bahr-el-Ghazal, and to the east by Kordofan. The last two areas are provinces (mudirias) of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Most of the region is a plateau ranging from 2000 to 3000 feet above sea level. A volcanic mountain range called Jebel Marra runs north and south along the 24° E. line for over 100 miles, reaching heights of 5000 to 6000 feet. This chain extends about 80 miles east to west. To the east, the mountains gradually transition into sandy, bush-covered plains. Northeast of Jebel Marra is Jebel Medob, a mountain range at 3500 feet, shaped by volcanic activity, and Bir-el-Melh, an extinct volcano with a crater 150 feet deep. South of Jebel Marra lie the plains of Dar Dima and Dar Uma; southwest of Marra, the plain reaches 4000 feet above sea level. The watershed that divides the Nile and Lake Chad basins runs north and south through the center of the region. The mountains are cut by numerous khors, which can be traced across the plateau. These khors used to have large rivers flowing northeast and east to the Nile, and west and southwest to Lake Chad, as well as south and southeast to Bahr-el-Ghazal. The northeastern streams drain into Wadi Melh, a dry riverbed that connects with the Nile near Debba, but once they reach the plain, the waters absorb into the sandy soil and vanish. The streams heading directly east toward the Nile also disappear into the sandy deserts. The khors in the west, southwest, and south—the most fertile areas of Darfur—carry fast-moving torrents during the rainy season, flooding much of the southern region. None of the streams are permanent, but during heavy rainfall, some khors' waters reach the Bahr-el-Homr, a tributary of Bahr-el-Ghazal. (For about 200 miles, the Bahr-el-Homr forms the southern border of the region.) In the west and south, water is accessible during the dry season by digging 5 or 6 feet below the surface of the khors.

The climate, except in the south, where the rains are heavy and the soil is a damp clay, is healthy except after the rains. The rainy season lasts for three months, from the middle of June to the middle of September. In the neighbourhood of the khors the vegetation is fairly rich. The chief trees are the acacias whence gum is obtained, and baobab (Adansonia digitata); while the sycamore and, in the Marra mountains, the Euphorbia candelabrum are also found. In the S.W. are densely forested regions. Cotton and tobacco are indigenous. The most fertile land is found on the slopes of the mountains, where wheat, durra, dukhn (a kind of millet and the staple food of the people) and other grains are grown. Other products are sesame, cotton, cucumbers, water-melons and onions.

The climate, except in the south where the rainfall is heavy and the soil is damp clay, is generally healthy, except right after it rains. The rainy season lasts for three months, from mid-June to mid-September. In the areas around the khors, the vegetation is quite rich. The main trees include acacias, which provide gum, and baobab (Adansonia digitata); the sycamore and, in the Marra mountains, Euphorbia candelabrum are also present. In the southwest, there are heavily forested regions. Cotton and tobacco are native crops. The most fertile land is located on the slopes of the mountains, where wheat, durra, dukhn (a type of millet and the staple food for the locals), and other grains are cultivated. Additional products include sesame, cotton, cucumbers, watermelons, and onions.

Copper is obtained from Hofrat-el-Nahas in the S.E., iron is wrought in the S.W.; and there are deposits of rock-salt in various places. The copper mines (in 9° 48′ N. 24° 5′ E.) are across the Darfur frontier in the Bahr-el-Ghazal province. The vein runs N.W. and S.E. and in places rises in ridges 2 ft. above the general level of ground. There is an immense quantity of ore, (silicate and carbonate) specimens containing 14% of metal. Camels and cattle are both numerous and of excellent breeds. Some of the Arab tribes, such as the Baggara, breed only cattle, those in the north and east confine themselves to rearing camels. Horses are comparatively rare; they are a small but sturdy breed. Sheep and goats are numerous. The ostrich, common in the eastern steppes, is bred by various Arab tribes, its feathers forming a valuable article of trade.

Copper is sourced from Hofrat-el-Nahas in the southeast, iron is produced in the southwest, and there are salt deposits in various locations. The copper mines (at 9° 48′ N. 24° 5′ E.) are just beyond the Darfur border in the Bahr-el-Ghazal province. The vein runs northwest to southeast and rises in some places to about 2 feet above the general ground level. There's a massive amount of ore, including silicate and carbonate, with specimens containing 14% metal. Both camels and cattle are abundant and of great quality. Some Arab tribes, like the Baggara, raise only cattle, while those in the north and east focus on camels. Horses are relatively rare; they are a small but robust breed. There are many sheep and goats. The ostrich, which is common in the eastern steppes, is raised by various Arab tribes, and its feathers are a valuable trade item.

Inhabitants.—The population of Darfur consists of negroes and Arabs. The negro For, forming quite half the inhabitants, occupy the central highlands and part of the Dar Dima and Dar Uma districts; they speak a special language, and are subdivided into numerous tribes, of which the most influential are the Masabat, the Kunjara and the Kera. They are of middle height, and have rather irregular features. The For are described as clean and industrious, somewhat fanatical, but generally amenable to civilization, and freedom-loving. The Massalit are 831 a negro tribe which, breaking off from the For some centuries back, have now much Arab blood, and speak Arabic; while the Tunjur are an Arab tribe which must have arrived in the Sudan at a very early date, as they have incorporated a large For element, and no longer profess Mahommedanism. The Dago (Tago) formerly inhabited Jebel Marra, but they have been driven to the south and west, where they maintain a certain independence in Dar Sula, but are treated as inferiors by the For. The Zaghawa, who inhabit the northern borders, are on the contrary regarded by the For as their equals, and have all the prestige of a race that at one time made its influence felt as far as Bornu. Among other tribes may be mentioned the Berti and Takruri, the Birgirid, the Beraunas, and immigrants from Wadai and Bagirmi, and Fula from west of Lake Chad. Genuine Arab tribes, e.g. the Baggara and Homr, are numerous, and they are partly nomadic and partly settled. The Arabs have not, generally speaking, mixed with the negro tribes. They are great hunters, making expeditions into the desert for five or six days at a time in search of ostriches.

Inhabitants.—The population of Darfur consists of Black people and Arabs. The Black For, who make up about half of the population, live in the central highlands and parts of the Dar Dima and Dar Uma districts; they speak a unique language and are divided into many tribes, the most influential being the Masabat, the Kunjara, and the Kera. They are of average height and have somewhat irregular features. The For are described as clean and hardworking, a bit fanatical, but generally open to civilization and cherish their freedom. The Massalit are a Black tribe that broke away from the For several centuries ago, now have a significant amount of Arab ancestry, and speak Arabic; while the Tunjur are an Arab tribe that must have arrived in Sudan very early, as they have incorporated a large number of For people into their community and no longer practice Islam. The Dago (Tago) used to inhabit Jebel Marra, but they have been pushed to the south and west, where they maintain a level of independence in Dar Sula, but are viewed as inferior by the For. The Zaghawa, who live in the northern regions, are seen by the For as equals and enjoy the reputation of a people who once had significant influence as far as Bornu. Other tribes include the Berti and Takruri, the Birgirid, the Beraunas, as well as immigrants from Wadai and Bagirmi, and Fula from west of Lake Chad. Genuine Arab tribes, such as the Baggara and Homr, are numerous, and they are partly nomadic and partly settled. Generally speaking, the Arabs have not mixed much with the Black tribes. They are avid hunters, embarking on expeditions into the desert for five or six days at a time in search of ostriches.

Slaves, ostrich feathers, gum and ivory used to be the chief articles of trade, a caravan going annually by the Arbain (“Forty Days”) road to Assiut in Egypt and taking back cloth, fire-arms and other articles. The slave trade has ceased, but feathers, gum and ivory still constitute the chief exports of the country. The principal imports are cotton goods, sugar and tea. There is also an active trade in camels and cattle.

Slaves, ostrich feathers, gum, and ivory used to be the main trade items, with a caravan traveling each year along the Arbain (“Forty Days”) road to Assiut in Egypt, bringing back cloth, firearms, and other goods. The slave trade has stopped, but feathers, gum, and ivory are still the primary exports of the country. The main imports now include cotton products, sugar, and tea. There is also a thriving trade in camels and cattle.

The internal administration of the country is in the hands of the sultan, who is officially recognized as the agent of the Sudan government. The administrative system resembles that of other Mahommedan countries.

The internal management of the country is handled by the sultan, who is officially acknowledged as the representative of the Sudan government. The administrative system is similar to that of other Muslim countries.

Towns.—The capital is El-Fasher, pop. about 10,000, on the western bank of the Wadi Tendelty in an angle formed by the junction of that wadi with the Wadi-el-Kho, one of the streams which flow towards the Bahr-el-Homr. Fasher is the residence of the sultan. There are a few fine buildings, but the town consists mainly of tukls and box-shaped straw sheds. It is 500 m. W.S.W. of Khartum. Dara, a small market town, is 110 m. S. of El-Fasher. Shakka is in the S.E. of the country near the Bahr-el-Homr, and was formerly the headquarters of the slave dealers.

Towns.—The capital is El-Fasher, with a population of about 10,000, located on the western bank of the Wadi Tendelty at the point where it meets the Wadi-el-Kho, one of the rivers that flows toward the Bahr-el-Homr. Fasher is the residence of the sultan. There are a few impressive buildings, but the town is primarily made up of tukls and box-shaped straw shelters. It is 500 m W.S.W. of Khartum. Dara, a small market town, is 110 m S. of El-Fasher. Shakka is in the S.E. part of the country near the Bahr-el-Homr and was previously the base for slave traders.

History.—The Dago or Tago negroes, inhabitants of Jebel Marra, appear to have been the dominant race in Darfur in the earliest period to which the history of the country goes back. How long they ruled is uncertain, little being known of them save a list of kings. According to tradition the Tago dynasty was displaced, and Mahommedanism introduced, about the 14th century, by Tunjur Arabs, who reached Darfur by way of Bornu and Wadai. The first Tunjur king was Ahmed-el-Makur, who married the daughter of the last Tago monarch. Ahmed reduced many unruly chiefs to submission, and under him the country prospered. His great-grandson, the sultan Dali, a celebrated figure in Darfur histories, was on his mother’s side a For, and thus was effected a union between the negro and Arab races. Dali divided the country into provinces, and established a penal code, which, under the title of Kitab Dali or Dali’s Book, is still preserved, and shows principles essentially different from those of the Koran. His grandson Soleiman (usually distinguished by the Forian epithet Solon, the Arab or the Red) reigned from 1596 to 1637, and was a great warrior and a devoted Mahommedan. Soleiman’s grandson, Ahmed Bahr (1682-1722), made Islam the religion of the state, and increased the prosperity of the country by encouraging immigration from Bornu and Bagirmi. His rule extended east of the Nile as far as the banks of the Atbara. Under succeeding monarchs the country, involved in wars with Sennar and Wadai, declined in importance. Towards the end of the 18th century a sultan named Mahommed Terab led an army against the Funj, but got no further than Omdurman. Here he was stopped by the Nile, and found no means of getting his army across the river. Unwilling to give up his project, Terab remained at Omdurman for months. He was poisoned by his wife at the instigation of disaffected chiefs, and the army returned to Darfur. The next monarch was Abd-er-Rahman, surnamed el-Raschid or the Just. It was during his reign that Napoleon Bonaparte was campaigning in Egypt; and in 1799 Abd-er-Rahman wrote to congratulate the French general on his defeat of the Mamelukes. To this Bonaparte replied by asking the sultan to send him by the next caravan 2000 black slaves upwards of sixteen years old, strong and vigorous. To Abd-er-Rahman likewise is due the present situation of the Fasher, or royal township. The capital had formerly been at a place called Kobbé. Mahommed-el-Fadhl, his son, was for some time under the control of an energetic eunuch, Mahommed Kurra, but he ultimately made himself independent, and his reign lasted till 1839, when he died of leprosy. He devoted himself largely to the subjection of the semi-independent Arab tribes who lived in the country, notably the Rizighat, thousands of whom he slew. In 1821 he lost the province of Kordofan, which in that year was conquered by the Egyptians. Of his forty sons, the third, Mahommed Hassin, was appointed his successor. Hassin is described as a religious but avaricious man. In the later part of his reign he became involved in trouble with the Arab slave raiders who had seized the Bahr-el-Ghazal, looked upon by the Darfurians as their especial “slave preserve.” The negroes of Bahr-el-Ghazal paid tribute of ivory and slaves to Darfur, and these were the chief articles of merchandise sold by the Darfurians to the Egyptian traders along the Arbain road to Assiut. The loss of the Bahr-el-Ghazal caused therefore much annoyance to the people of Darfur. Hassin died in 1873, blind and advanced in years, and the succession passed to his youngest son Ibrahim, who soon found himself engaged in a conflict with Zobeir (q.v.), the chief of the Bahr-el-Ghazal slave traders, and with an Egyptian force from Khartum. The war resulted in the destruction of the kingdom. Ibrahim was slain in battle in the autumn of 1874, and his uncle Hassab Alla, who sought to maintain the independence of his country, was captured in 1875 by the troops of the khedive, and removed to Cairo with his family. The Darfurians were restive under Egyptian rule. Various revolts were suppressed, but in 1879 General Gordon (then governor-general of the Sudan) suggested the reinstatement of the ancient royal family. This was not done, and in 1881 Slatin Bey (Sir Rudolf von Slatin) was made governor of the province. Slatin defended the province against the forces of the Mahdi, who were led by a Rizighat sheik named Madibbo, but was obliged to surrender (December 1883), and Darfur was incorporated in the Mahdi’s dominions. The Darfurians found Dervish rule as irksome as that of the Egyptians had been, and a state of almost constant warfare ended in the gradual retirement of the Dervishes from Darfur. Following the overthrow of the khalifa at Omdurman in 1898 the new (Anglo-Egyptian) Sudan government recognized (1899) Ali Dinar, a grandson of Mahommed-el-Fadhl, as sultan of Darfur, on the payment by that chief of an annual tribute of £500. Under Ali Dinar, who during the Mahdia had been kept a prisoner in Omdurman, Darfur enjoyed a period of peace.

History.—The Dago or Tago negroes, who lived in Jebel Marra, seem to have been the dominant race in Darfur during the earliest times recorded in the history of the region. It's unclear how long they ruled, as little is known about them except for a list of kings. Tradition holds that the Tago dynasty was replaced, and Islam was introduced, around the 14th century by Tunjur Arabs, who arrived in Darfur via Bornu and Wadai. The first Tunjur king was Ahmed-el-Makur, who married the daughter of the last Tago monarch. Ahmed brought many unruly chiefs under control, and under his rule, the country thrived. His great-grandson, Sultan Dali, a well-known figure in Darfur's history, was of For descent on his mother’s side, uniting the negro and Arab races. Dali divided the country into provinces and established a penal code known as Kitab Dali or Dali’s Book, which is still preserved and contains principles quite different from those in the Koran. His grandson, Soleiman (often referred to by the Forian name Solon, the Arab or the Red), ruled from 1596 to 1637 and was a notable warrior and a devoted Muslim. Soleiman's grandson, Ahmed Bahr (1682-1722), made Islam the state religion and boosted the country’s prosperity by promoting immigration from Bornu and Bagirmi. His rule extended east of the Nile to the banks of the Atbara. Under subsequent monarchs, the country declined in significance due to wars with Sennar and Wadai. Towards the late 18th century, Sultan Mahommed Terab led an army against the Funj but could only get as far as Omdurman, where he was halted by the Nile and found no way to cross it. Reluctant to abandon his campaign, Terab stayed at Omdurman for months. He was eventually poisoned by his wife at the urging of discontented chiefs, and the army returned to Darfur. The next ruler was Abd-er-Rahman, known as el-Raschid or the Just. During his reign, Napoleon Bonaparte was campaigning in Egypt; in 1799, Abd-er-Rahman congratulated the French general on defeating the Mamelukes. In response, Bonaparte asked the sultan to send him 2,000 black slaves over sixteen years old, strong and healthy, with the next caravan. Abd-er-Rahman is also responsible for the current situation of the Fasher, or royal township, as the capital used to be at a place called Kobbé. His son, Mahommed-el-Fadhl, was at one time under the control of a powerful eunuch, Mahommed Kurra, but eventually became independent, ruling until 1839 when he died of leprosy. He focused heavily on subduing the semi-independent Arab tribes in the region, particularly the Rizighat, thousands of whom he killed. In 1821, he lost the province of Kordofan, which was conquered by the Egyptians that year. Of his forty sons, the third, Mahommed Hassin, was named his successor. Hassin is described as religious but greedy. Later in his reign, he encountered issues with the Arab slave raiders who had taken the Bahr-el-Ghazal, seen by the Darfurians as their “slave preserve.” The negroes of Bahr-el-Ghazal paid tribute of ivory and slaves to Darfur, which were the main trade goods sold by the Darfurians to Egyptian traders along the Arbain road to Assiut. The loss of Bahr-el-Ghazal caused significant distress among the people of Darfur. Hassin died in 1873, blind and elderly, and the succession went to his youngest son Ibrahim, who quickly found himself in conflict with Zobeir (q.v.), the leader of the Bahr-el-Ghazal slave traders, and an Egyptian force from Khartum. This war ended with the destruction of the kingdom. Ibrahim was killed in battle in the fall of 1874, and his uncle Hassab Alla, who tried to keep his country independent, was captured in 1875 by the khedive's troops and taken to Cairo with his family. The Darfurians were restless under Egyptian rule. Several uprisings were quashed, but in 1879, General Gordon (then governor-general of the Sudan) proposed reinstating the old royal family. This was not carried out, and in 1881, Slatin Bey (Sir Rudolf von Slatin) became the province's governor. Slatin defended the province against the Mahdi’s forces, led by a Rizighat chief named Madibbo, but was forced to surrender in December 1883, and Darfur was absorbed into the Mahdi’s territories. The Darfurians found Dervish rule just as oppressive as that of the Egyptians had been, and a near-constant state of warfare eventually led to the gradual withdrawal of the Dervishes from Darfur. After the overthrow of the khalifa in Omdurman in 1898, the new (Anglo-Egyptian) Sudan government recognized (1899) Ali Dinar, a grandson of Mahommed-el-Fadhl, as sultan of Darfur, contingent on him paying an annual tribute of £500. Under Ali Dinar, who had previously been kept a prisoner in Omdurman during the Mahdia, Darfur experienced a period of peace.

The first European traveller known to have visited Darfur was William George Browne (q.v.), who spent two years (1793-1795) at Kobbé. Sheik Mahommed-el-Tounsi travelled in 1803 through various regions of Africa, including Darfur, in search of Omar, his father, and afterwards gave to the world an account of his wanderings, which was translated into French in 1845 by M. Perron. Gustav Nachtigal in 1873 spent some months in Darfur, and since that time the country has become well known through the journeys of Gordon, Slatin and others.

The first European traveler known to have visited Darfur was William George Browne, who spent two years (1793-1795) at Kobbé. Sheik Mahommed-el-Tounsi traveled through various regions of Africa, including Darfur, in 1803 searching for his father, Omar, and later shared his experiences, which M. Perron translated into French in 1845. Gustav Nachtigal spent several months in Darfur in 1873, and since then, the country has become well known through the journeys of Gordon, Slatin, and others.

Authorities.—Browne’s account of Darfur will be found in his Travels in Africa, Egypt and Syria (London, 1799); Nachtigal’s Sahara und Sudan gives the results of that traveller’s observations. The first ten chapters of Slatin Pasha’s book Fire and Sword in the Sudan (English edition, London, 1896) contain much information concerning the country, its history, and a full account of the overthrow of Egyptian authority by the Mahdi. See also The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (London, 1905), edited by Count Gleichen, and the bibliography given under Sudan.

Authorities.—Browne’s travel experiences in Darfur can be found in his Travels in Africa, Egypt and Syria (London, 1799); Nachtigal’s Sahara und Sudan provides the insights from that traveler’s observations. The first ten chapters of Slatin Pasha’s book Fire and Sword in the Sudan (English edition, London, 1896) contain a lot of information about the region, its history, and a detailed account of the Mahdi’s overthrow of Egyptian rule. Also, check out The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (London, 1905), edited by Count Gleichen, and the bibliography listed under Sudan.


DARGAI, the name of a mountain peak and a frontier station in the north-west Frontier Province of India. The mountain peak is situated on the Samana Range, and the Kohat border, and is famous for the stand made there by the Afridis and Orakzais in 832 the Tirah Campaign. (See Tirah Campaign.) Dargai station is situated on the Peshawar border, and is the terminus of the frontier railway running from Nowshera to the Malakand Pass.

Dargai the name of a mountain peak and a border station in the northwest Frontier Province of India. The mountain peak is located on the Samana Range near the Kohat border, and is known for the stand taken by the Afridis and Orakzais during the Tirah Campaign. (See Tirah Campaign.) Dargai station is situated on the Peshawar border and is the endpoint of the frontier railway that runs from Nowshera to the Malakand Pass.


DARGOMIJSKY, ALEXANDER SERGEIVICH (1813-1869), Russian composer, was born in 1813, and educated in St Petersburg. He was already known as a talented musical amateur when in 1833 he met Glinka and was encouraged to devote himself to composition. His light opera Esmeralda was written in 1839, and his Roussalka was performed in 1856, but he had but small success or recognition either at home or abroad, except in Belgium, till the ’sixties, when he became one of Balakirev’s circle. His opera The Stone Guest then became famous among the progressive Russian school, though it was not performed till 1872. Dargomijsky died in January 1869. His compositions include a number of songs, and some orchestral pieces.

DARGOMIJSKY, ALEXANDER SERGEIVICH (1813-1869), Russian composer, was born in 1813 and educated in St. Petersburg. He was already recognized as a talented amateur musician when he met Glinka in 1833, who encouraged him to pursue composition. His light opera Esmeralda was created in 1839, and his Roussalka was performed in 1856, but he had limited success or recognition at home or abroad, except in Belgium, until the 1860s, when he joined Balakirev’s circle. His opera The Stone Guest then gained fame among the progressive Russian school, although it wasn't performed until 1872. Dargomijsky passed away in January 1869. His works include several songs and a few orchestral pieces.


DARIAL, a gorge in the Caucasus, at the east foot of Mt. Kasbek, pierced by the river Terek for a distance of 8 m. between vertical walls of rock (5900 ft.). It is mentioned in the Georgian annals under the names of Ralani, Dargani, Darialani; the Persians and Arabs knew it as the Gate of the Alans; Strabo calls it Porta Caucasica and Porta Cumana; Ptolemy, Porta Sarmatica; it was sometimes known as Portae Caspiae (a name bestowed also on the “gate” or pass beside the Caspian at Derbent); and the Tatars call it Darioly. Being the only available passage across the Caucasus, it has been fortified since a remote period—at least since 150 B.C. In Russian poetry it has been immortalized by Lermontov. The present Russian fort, Darial, which guards this section of the Georgian military road, is at the northern issue of the gorge, at an altitude of 4746 ft.

DARIAL, is a gorge in the Caucasus, located at the eastern foot of Mt. Kasbek, where the river Terek flows for 8 miles through sheer rock walls (5900 ft. high). It appears in Georgian history under the names Ralani, Dargani, and Darialani; the Persians and Arabs referred to it as the Gate of the Alans; Strabo called it Porta Caucasica and Porta Cumana; Ptolemy referred to it as Porta Sarmatica; it was sometimes known as Portae Caspiae (a name also given to the pass beside the Caspian at Derbent); and the Tatars call it Darioly. Being the only available route across the Caucasus, it has been fortified for a long time—at least since 150 B.C. In Russian poetry, it has been immortalized by Lermontov. The current Russian fort, Darial, which protects this part of the Georgian military road, is located at the northern end of the gorge, at an elevation of 4746 ft.


DARIEN, a district covering the eastern part of the isthmus joining Central and South America. It is mainly within the republic of Panama, and gives its name to a gulf of the Carribbean Sea. Darien is of great interest in the history of geographical discovery. It was reconnoitred in the first year of the 16th century by Rodrigo Bastidas of Seville; and the first settlement was Santa Maria la Antigua, situated on the small Darien river, north-west of the mouth of the Atrato. In 1513 Vasco Nuñez de Balboa stood “silent upon a peak in Darien,”1 and saw the Pacific at his feet stretching inland in the Gulf of San Miguel; and for long this narrow neck of land seemed alternately to proffer and refuse a means of transit between the two oceans. The first serious attempt to turn the isthmus to permanent account as a trade route dates from the beginning of the 18th century, and forms an interesting chapter in Scottish history. In 1695 an act was passed by the Scottish parliament giving extensive powers to a company trading to Africa and the Indies; and this company, under the advice of one of the most remarkable economists of the period, William Paterson (q.v.), determined to establish a colony on the isthmus of Darien as a general emporium for the commerce of all the nations of the world. Regarded with disfavour both in England and Holland, the project was taken up in Scotland with the enthusiasm of national rivalry towards England, and the “subscriptions sucked up all the money in the country.” On the 26th of July 1698 the pioneers set sail from Leith amid the cheers of an almost envious multitude; and on the 4th of November, with the loss of only fifteen out of 1200 men, they arrived at Darien, and took up their quarters in a well-defended spot, with a good harbour and excellent outlook. The country they named New Caledonia, and two sites selected for future cities were designated respectively New Edinburgh and New St Andrews. At first all seemed to go well; but by and by lack of provisions, sickness and anarchy reduced the settlers to the most miserable plight; and in June 1699 they re-embarked in three vessels, a weak and hopeless company, to sail whithersoever Providence might direct. Meanwhile a supplementary expedition had been prepared in Scotland; two vessels were despatched in May, and four others followed in August. But this venture proved even more unfortunate than the former. The colonists arrived broken in health; their spirits were crushed by the fate of their predecessors, and embittered by the harsh fanaticism of the four ministers whom the general assembly of the Church of Scotland had sent out to establish a regular presbyterial organization. The last addition to the settlement was the company of Captain Alexander Campbell of Fonab, who arrived only to learn that a Spanish force of 1500 or 1600 men lay encamped at Tubacanti, on the river Santa Maria, waiting for the appearance of a Spanish squadron in order to make a combined attack on the fort. Captain Campbell, on the second day after his arrival, marched with 200 men across the isthmus to Tubacanti, stormed the camp in the night-time, and dispersed the Spanish force. On his return to the fort on the fifth day he found it besieged by the Spaniards from the men-of-war; and, after a vain attempt to maintain its defence, he succeeded with a few companions in making his escape in a small vessel. A capitulation followed, and the Darien colony was no more. Of those who had taken part in the enterprise only a miserable handful ever reached their native land.

DARIEN, a region covering the eastern part of the isthmus connecting Central and South America. It is primarily located within the republic of Panama and lends its name to a gulf in the Caribbean Sea. Darien holds significant importance in the history of geographical exploration. It was first surveyed in the early 16th century by Rodrigo Bastidas from Seville, and the initial settlement was Santa Maria la Antigua, located on the small Darien River, northwest of the mouth of the Atrato. In 1513, Vasco Nuñez de Balboa stood “silent upon a peak in Darien,”1 and viewed the Pacific Ocean stretching before him in the Gulf of San Miguel; this narrow strip of land seemed to repeatedly offer and deny a route between the two oceans. The first serious effort to permanently utilize the isthmus as a trade route began in the early 18th century and represents an intriguing chapter in Scottish history. In 1695, the Scottish parliament passed a law granting extensive powers to a company trading in Africa and the Indies; this company, advised by one of the period's notable economists, William Paterson (q.v.), decided to establish a colony on the isthmus of Darien as a central trading hub for all the nations of the world. Met with skepticism in both England and Holland, the project was embraced in Scotland with a sense of national rivalry towards England, prompting “subscriptions [to] suck up all the money in the country.” On July 26, 1698, the pioneers set sail from Leith amid the cheers of an almost envious crowd; by November 4, having only lost fifteen out of 1200 men, they arrived at Darien and established themselves in a well-defended area with a good harbor and excellent views. They named the region New Caledonia, with two locations earmarked for future cities as New Edinburgh and New St Andrews. Initially, everything seemed to go smoothly; however, over time, shortages of food, illness, and chaos led to the settlers becoming increasingly desperate. By June 1699, they re-boarded three vessels, a weakened and hopeless group, ready to leave wherever fate might take them. Meanwhile, a backup expedition had been organized in Scotland; two ships were sent out in May, followed by four more in August. Unfortunately, this attempt was even more disastrous than the previous one. The new colonists arrived in poor health; they were demoralized by the fate of those who had come before them and soured by the harsh zealotry of the four ministers sent by the general assembly of the Church of Scotland to establish a formal presbyterial organization. The last group to join the settlement was led by Captain Alexander Campbell of Fonab, who arrived only to discover that a Spanish force of 1500 or 1600 men was camped at Tubacanti, on the Santa Maria River, waiting for a Spanish naval squadron to launch a coordinated attack on the fort. Just two days after his arrival, Captain Campbell, with 200 men, traversed the isthmus to Tubacanti, launched a nighttime surprise attack on the camp, and dispersed the Spanish troops. Upon returning to the fort five days later, he found it besieged by Spanish forces from the warships; after a futile attempt to defend it, he managed to escape with a few companions in a small boat. A surrender followed, leading to the end of the Darien colony. Of those who participated in the venture, only a pitiful few ever returned to their homeland.

See J. H. Burton, The Darien Papers (Bannatyne Club, 1849); Macaulay, History of England (London, 1866); and A. Lang, History of Scotland, vol. iv. (Edinburgh, 1907).

See J. H. Burton, The Darien Papers (Bannatyne Club, 1849); Macaulay, History of England (London, 1866); and A. Lang, History of Scotland, vol. iv. (Edinburgh, 1907).


1 Keats, in his famous sonnet beginning:—“Much have I travelled in the realms of gold,” of which this is the concluding line, inaccurately substitutes Cortez for Balboa.

1 Keats, in his well-known sonnet starting with:—“Much have I travelled in the realms of gold,” which ends with this line, mistakenly replaces Cortez with Balboa.


DARIUS (Pers. Dārayavaush; Old Test. Daryavesh), the name of three Persian kings.

DARIUS (Pers. Dārayavaush; Old Test. Daryavesh), the name of three Persian kings.

1. Darius the Great, the son of Hystaspes (q.v.). The principal source for his history is his own inscriptions, especially the great inscription of Behistun (q.v.), in which he relates how he gained the crown and put down the rebellions. In modern times his veracity has often been doubted, but without any sufficient reason; the whole tenor of his words shows that we can rely upon his account. The accounts given by Herodotus and Ctesias of his accession are in many points evidently dependent on this official version, with many legendary stories interwoven, e.g. that Darius and his allies left the question as to which of them should become king to the decision of their horses, and that Darius won the crown by a trick of his groom.

1. Darius I, the son of Hystaspes (q.v.). The main source for his history is his own inscriptions, particularly the significant inscription at Behistun (q.v.), where he describes how he acquired the crown and suppressed the rebellions. In modern times, some people have questioned his honesty, but there's no strong reason for that; the overall tone of his words indicates that we can trust his account. The narratives provided by Herodotus and Ctesias about his rise to power clearly rely on this official version, although they contain many legendary tales, like the one where Darius and his allies let their horses decide who would be king, and that Darius secured the crown through a scheme involving his groom.

Darius belonged to a younger branch of the royal family of the Achaemenidae. When, after the suicide of Cambyses (March 521), the usurper Gaumata ruled undisturbed over the whole empire under the name of Bardiya (Smerdis), son of Cyrus, and no one dared to gainsay him, Darius, “with the help of Ahura-mazda,” attempted to regain the kingdom for the royal race. His father Hystaspes was still alive, but evidently had not the courage to urge his claims. Assisted by six noble Persians, whose names he proclaims at the end of the Behistun inscription, he surprised and killed the usurper in a Median fortress (October 521; for the chronology of these times cf. E. Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, ii. 472 ff.), and gained the crown. But this sudden change was the signal for an attempt on the part of all the eastern provinces to regain their independence. In Susiana, Babylon, Media, Sagartia, Margiana, usurpers arose, pretending to be of the old royal race, and gathered large armies around them; in Persia itself Vahyazdāta imitated the example of Gaumata and was acknowledged by the majority of the people as the true Bardiya. Darius with only a small army of Persians and Medes and some trustworthy generals overcame all difficulties, and in 520 and 519 all the rebellions were put down (Babylon rebelled twice, Susiana even three times), and the authority of Darius was established throughout the empire.

Darius was part of a younger branch of the royal Achaemenid family. After Cambyses' suicide in March 521, the usurper Gaumata ruled the entire empire as Bardiya (Smerdis), son of Cyrus, and no one dared to challenge him. Darius, “with the help of Ahura-mazda,” sought to reclaim the kingdom for the royal family. His father, Hystaspes, was still alive but didn’t seem to have the courage to make a claim. With the help of six noble Persians, whose names he lists at the end of the Behistun inscription, he surprised and killed the usurper in a Median fortress in October 521 (for the timeline of this period, see E. Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, ii. 472 ff.), and he took the crown. However, this sudden shift sparked an attempt by all the eastern provinces to reclaim their independence. In places like Susiana, Babylon, Media, Sagartia, and Margiana, usurpers emerged, claiming to be from the old royal lineage and gathered large armies around them; in Persia, Vahyazdāta followed in Gaumata’s footsteps and was recognized by most people as the true Bardiya. Darius, with only a small army of Persians and Medes and some trusted generals, overcame all obstacles, and by 520 and 519, all revolts were suppressed (Babylon rebelled twice, Susiana even three times), and Darius's authority was established across the empire.

Darius in his inscriptions appears as a fervent believer in the true religion of Zoroaster. But he was also a great statesman and organizer. The time of conquests had come to an end; the wars which Darius undertook, like those of Augustus, only served the purpose of gaining strong natural frontiers for the empire and keeping down the barbarous tribes on its borders. Thus Darius subjugated the wild nations of the Pontic and Armenian mountains, and extended the Persian dominion to the Caucasus; for the same reasons he fought against the Sacae and other Turanian tribes. But by the organization which he gave to the empire he became the true successor of the great Cyrus. His organization of the provinces and the fixing of the tributes is described by Herodotus iii. 90 ff., evidently from good official sources. He fixed the coinage and introduced the gold coinage 833 of the Daric (which is not named after him, as the Greeks believed, but derived from a Persian word meaning “gold”; in Middle Persian it is called zarīg). He tried to develop the commerce of the empire, and sent an expedition down the Kabul and the Indus, led by the Carian captain Scylax of Caryanda, who explored the Indian Ocean from the mouth of the Indus to Suez. He dug a canal from the Nile to Suez, and, as the fragments of a hieroglyphic inscription found there show, his ships sailed from the Nile through the Red Sea by Saba to Persia. He had connexions with Carthage (i.e. the Karkā of the Nakshi Rustam inscr.), and explored the shores of Sicily and Italy. At the same time he attempted to gain the good-will of the subject nations, and for this purpose promoted the aims of their priests. He allowed the Jews to build the Temple of Jerusalem. In Egypt his name appears on the temples which he built in Memphis, Edfu and the Great Oasis. He called the high-priest of Saïs, Uzahor, to Susa (as we learn from his inscription in the Vatican), and gave him full powers to reorganize the “house of life,” the great medical school of the temple of Saïs. In the Egyptian traditions he is considered as one of the great benefactors and lawgivers of the country (Herod. ii. 110, Diod. i. 95). In similar relations he stood to the Greek sanctuaries (cf. his rescript to “his slave” Godatas, the inspector of a royal park near Magnesia, on the Maeander, in which he grants freedom of taxes and forced labour to the sacred territory of Apollo. See Cousin and Deschamps, Bulletin de corresp. hellén., xiii. (1889), 529, and Dittenberger, Sylloge inscr. graec., 2); all the Greek oracles in Asia Minor and Europe therefore stood on the side of Persia in the Persian wars and admonished the Greeks to attempt no resistance.

Darius's inscriptions show him as a passionate believer in the true religion of Zoroaster. However, he was also an exceptional statesman and organizer. The era of conquests was over; the wars Darius waged, like those of Augustus, aimed only to secure strong natural borders for the empire and to suppress the barbaric tribes on its edges. Thus, Darius conquered the wild tribes of the Pontic and Armenian mountains, expanding Persian territory to the Caucasus; for similar reasons, he fought against the Sacae and other Turanian tribes. Through the organization he brought to the empire, he became the rightful successor of the great Cyrus. His organization of the provinces and the establishment of tributes are detailed by Herodotus iii. 90 ff., clearly from reliable official sources. He standardized the coinage and introduced the gold coinage known as the Daric (which isn’t named after him, as the Greeks thought, but comes from a Persian word meaning “gold”; in Middle Persian, it’s called zarīg). He aimed to boost the empire's commerce, sending an expedition down the Kabul and Indus rivers, led by the Carian captain Scylax of Caryanda, who explored the Indian Ocean from the mouth of the Indus to Suez. He dug a canal from the Nile to Suez, and based on fragments of a hieroglyphic inscription found there, his ships sailed from the Nile through the Red Sea to Persia. He established connections with Carthage (the Karkā in the Nakshi Rustam inscription) and explored the coasts of Sicily and Italy. At the same time, he sought to win the goodwill of the conquered nations, and to that end, he supported the aspirations of their priests. He permitted the Jews to construct the Temple of Jerusalem. In Egypt, his name is found on the temples he built in Memphis, Edfu, and the Great Oasis. He summoned the high priest of Saïs, Uzahor, to Susa (as indicated by his inscription in the Vatican) and empowered him to reorganize the “house of life,” the major medical school at the temple of Saïs. In Egyptian traditions, he is viewed as one of the great benefactors and lawgivers of the land (Herod. ii. 110, Diod. i. 95). He maintained similarly favorable relations with Greek sanctuaries (refer to his letter to “his servant” Godatas, the inspector of a royal park near Magnesia, on the Maeander, where he grants tax and forced labor exemptions for the sacred territory of Apollo. See Cousin and Deschamps, Bulletin de corresp. hellén., xiii. (1889), 529, and Dittenberger, Sylloge inscr. graec., 2); all the Greek oracles in Asia Minor and Europe thus aligned with Persia during the Persian wars and advised the Greeks against any resistance.

About 512 Darius undertook a war against the Scythians. A great army crossed the Bosporus, subjugated eastern Thrace, and crossed the Danube. The purpose of this war can only have been to attack the nomadic Turanian tribes in the rear and thus to secure peace on the northern frontier of the empire. It was based upon a wrong geographical conception; even Alexander and his Macedonians believed that on the Hindu Kush (which they called Caucasus) and on the shores of the Jaxartes (which they called Tanais, i.e. Don) they were quite near to the Black Sea. Of course the expedition undertaken on these grounds could not but prove a failure; having advanced for some weeks into the Russian steppes, Darius was forced to return. The details given by Herodotus (according to him Darius had reached the Volga!) are quite fantastical; and the account which Darius himself had given on a tablet, which was added to his great inscription in Behistun, is destroyed with the exception of a few words. (See R. W. Macan, Herodotus, vol. ii. appendix 3; G. B. Grundy, Great Persian War, pp. 48-64; J. B. Bury in Classical Review, July 1897.)

Around 512, Darius launched a campaign against the Scythians. A large army crossed the Bosporus, took control of eastern Thrace, and crossed the Danube. The goal of this campaign was likely to attack the nomadic Turanian tribes from behind, securing peace on the empire's northern border. This strategy was based on a faulty understanding of geography; even Alexander and his Macedonians thought that the Hindu Kush (which they called the Caucasus) and the banks of the Jaxartes (which they referred to as Tanais, or the Don) were close to the Black Sea. Naturally, such a campaign could only end in failure; after advancing for several weeks into the Russian steppes, Darius was compelled to retreat. The details provided by Herodotus (who claimed Darius had reached the Volga!) are quite fanciful, and the account Darius himself inscribed on a tablet that was part of his grand inscription at Behistun has mostly been lost, except for a few words. (See R. W. Macan, Herodotus, vol. ii. appendix 3; G. B. Grundy, Great Persian War, pp. 48-64; J. B. Bury in Classical Review, July 1897.)

Although European Greece was intimately connected with the coasts of Asia Minor, and the opposing parties in the Greek towns were continually soliciting his intervention, Darius did not meddle with their affairs. The Persian wars were begun by the Greeks themselves. The support which Athens and Eretria gave to the rebellious Ionians and Carians made their punishment inevitable as soon as the rebellion had been put down. But the first expedition, that of Mardonius, failed on the cliffs of Mt. Athos (492), and the army which was led into Attica by Datis in 490 was beaten at Marathon. Before Darius had finished his preparations for a third expedition an insurrection broke out in Egypt (486). In the next year Darius died, probably in October 485, after a reign of thirty-six years. He is one of the greatest rulers the east has produced.

Although European Greece was closely tied to the coasts of Asia Minor, and the rival factions in the Greek cities constantly sought his intervention, Darius didn’t involve himself in their issues. The Persian wars were initiated by the Greeks themselves. The support that Athens and Eretria provided to the rebellious Ionians and Carians made their retribution unavoidable once the rebellion was suppressed. However, the first campaign, led by Mardonius, ended in failure on the cliffs of Mt. Athos (492), and the army led into Attica by Datis in 490 was defeated at Marathon. Before Darius could complete his preparations for a third campaign, an uprising broke out in Egypt (486). The following year, Darius died, likely in October 485, after ruling for thirty-six years. He is regarded as one of the greatest leaders the East has ever seen.

2. Darius II., Ochus. Artaxerxes I., who died in the beginning of 424, was followed by his son Xerxes II. But after a month and a half he was murdered by his brother Secydianus, or Sogdianus (the form of the name is uncertain). Against him rose a bastard brother, Ochus, satrap of Hyrcania, and after a short fight killed him, and suppressed by treachery the attempt of his own brother Arsites to imitate his example (Ctesias ap. Phot. 44; Diod. xii. 71, 108; Pausan. vi. 5, 7). Ochus adopted the name Darius (in the chronicles called Nothos, the bastard). Neither Xerxes II. nor Secydianus occurs in the dates of the numerous Babylonian tablets from Nippur; here the dates of Darius II. follow immediately on those of Artaxerxes I. Of Darius II.’s reign we know very little (a rebellion of the Medes in 409 is mentioned in Xenophon, Hellen. i. 2. 19), except that he was quite dependent on his wife Parysatis. In the excerpts from Ctesias some harem intrigues are recorded, in which he played a disreputable part. As long as the power of Athens remained intact he did not meddle in Greek affairs; even the support which the Athenians in 413 gave to the rebel Amorges in Caria would not have roused him (Andoc. iii. 29; Thuc. viii. 28, 54; Ctesias wrongly names his father Pissuthnes in his stead; an account of these wars is contained in the great Lycian stele from Xanthus in the British Museum), had not the Athenian power broken down in the same year before Syracuse. He gave orders to his satraps in Asia Minor, Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, to send in the overdue tribute of the Greek towns, and to begin war with Athens; for this purpose they entered into an alliance with Sparta. In 408 he sent his son Cyrus to Asia Minor, to carry on the war with greater energy. In 404 he died after a reign of nineteen years, and was followed by Artaxerxes II.

2. Darius II., Ochus. Artaxerxes I, who passed away at the start of 424, was succeeded by his son Xerxes II. However, after just a month and a half, he was killed by his brother Secydianus, or Sogdianus (the exact form of the name is unclear). A half-brother, Ochus, the satrap of Hyrcania, rose up against him, quickly defeated him, and, through treachery, thwarted the efforts of his own brother Arsites to do the same (Ctesias ap. Phot. 44; Diod. xii. 71, 108; Pausan. vi. 5, 7). Ochus took on the name Darius (known in the chronicles as Nothos, meaning the bastard). Neither Xerxes II nor Secydianus appears in the dates of the many Babylonian tablets from Nippur; instead, the dates of Darius II directly follow those of Artaxerxes I. We know very little about Darius II's reign (a rebellion by the Medes in 409 is mentioned in Xenophon, Hellen. i. 2. 19), except that he was heavily reliant on his wife Parysatis. The excerpts from Ctesias record some palace intrigues involving him, showcasing his less-than-favorable role. While Athens maintained its power, he didn’t involve himself in Greek affairs; even the support the Athenians gave to the rebel Amorges in Caria in 413 wouldn’t have provoked him (Andoc. iii. 29; Thuc. viii. 28, 54; Ctesias mistakenly names his father as Pissuthnes instead; an account of these wars is found in the large Lycian stele from Xanthus in the British Museum), had it not been for the collapse of Athenian power before Syracuse in the same year. He instructed his satraps in Asia Minor, Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, to collect the overdue tribute from the Greek cities and to initiate war against Athens; for this, they formed an alliance with Sparta. In 408, he sent his son Cyrus to Asia Minor to pursue the war more vigorously. In 404, he died after a nineteen-year reign and was succeeded by Artaxerxes II.

3. Darius III., Codomannus. The eunuch Bagoas (q.v.), having murdered Artaxerxes III. in 338 and his son Arses in 336, raised to the throne a distant relative of the royal house, whose name, according to Justin x. 3, was Codomannus, and who had excelled in a war against the Cadusians (cf. Diod. xvii. 5 ff., where his father is called Arsames, son of Ostanes, a brother of Artaxerxes). The new king, who adopted the name of Darius, took warning by the fate of his predecessors, and saved himself from it by forcing Bagoas to drink the cup himself. Already in 336 Philip II. of Macedon had sent an army into Asia Minor, and in the spring of 334 the campaign of Alexander began. In the following year Darius himself took the field against the Macedonian king, but was beaten at Issus and in 331 at Arbela. In his flight to the east he was deposed and killed by Bessus (July 330).

3. Darius III., Codomannus. The eunuch Bagoas (see above), having killed Artaxerxes III. in 338 and his son Arses in 336, placed a distant relative of the royal family on the throne, whose name, according to Justin x. 3, was Codomannus. He had distinguished himself in a war against the Cadusians (see Diod. xvii. 5 ff., where his father is referred to as Arsames, son of Ostanes, a brother of Artaxerxes). The new king, who took the name Darius, learned from the fate of his predecessors and saved himself by forcing Bagoas to drink the poison himself. By 336, Philip II of Macedon had already sent an army into Asia Minor, and in the spring of 334, Alexander's campaign began. The following year, Darius took the field against the Macedonian king but was defeated at Issus and again in 331 at Arbela. In his flight to the east, he was overthrown and killed by Bessus (July 330).

The name Darius was also borne by many later dynasts of Persian origin, among them kings of Persis (q.v.), Darius of Media Atropatene who was defeated by Pompeius, and Darius, king of Pontus in the time of Antony.

The name Darius was also carried by many later rulers of Persian descent, including the kings of Persis, Darius of Media Atropatene who was defeated by Pompeius, and Darius, king of Pontus during Antony's time.

(Ed. M.)

DARJEELING, a hill station and district of British India, in the Bhagalpur division of Bengal. The sanatorium is situated 367 m. by rail north of Calcutta. In 1901 it had a population of 16,924. It is the summer quarters of the Bengal government and has a most agreeable climate, which neither exceeds 80° F. in summer, nor falls below 30° in winter. The great attraction of Darjeeling is its scenery, which is unspeakably grand. The view across the hills to Kinchinjunga discloses a glittering white wall of perpetual snow, surrounded by towering masses of granite. There are several schools of considerable size for European boys and girls, and a government boarding school at Kurseong. The buildings and the roads suffered severely from the earthquake of the 12th of June 1897. But a more terrible disaster occurred in October 1899, when a series of landslips carried away houses and broke up the hill railway. The total value of the property destroyed was returned at £160,000.

DARJEELING, is a hill station and district in British India, located in the Bhagalpur division of Bengal. The sanatorium is 367 km by rail north of Calcutta. In 1901, it had a population of 16,924. It serves as the summer residence for the Bengal government and has a very pleasant climate, rarely exceeding 80° F in summer and not dropping below 30° in winter. The main attraction of Darjeeling is its breathtaking scenery. The view across the hills to Kanchenjunga reveals a shimmering white wall of perpetual snow, surrounded by towering granite peaks. There are several sizable schools for European boys and girls, as well as a government boarding school in Kurseong. The buildings and roads were severely damaged by the earthquake on June 12, 1897. However, an even more devastating disaster struck in October 1899, when a series of landslips destroyed houses and disrupted the hill railway. The total estimated loss of property was £160,000.

The district of Darjeeling comprises an area of 1164 sq. m. It consists of two well-defined tracts, viz. the lower Himalayas to the south of Sikkim, and the tarai, or plains, which extend from the south of these ranges as far as the northern borders of Purnea district. The plains from which the hills take their rise are only 300 ft. above sea-level; the mountains ascend abruptly in spurs of 6000 to 10,000 ft. in height. The scenery throughout the hills is picturesque, and in many parts magnificent. The two highest mountains in the world, Kinchinjunga in Sikkim (28,156 ft.) and Everest in Nepal (29,002 ft.), are visible from the town of Darjeeling. The principal peaks within the district are—Phalut (11,811 ft.), Subargum (11,636), Tanglu (10,084), Situng and Sinchal Pahai (8163). The chief rivers are the Tista, Great and Little Ranjit, Ramman, Mahananda, Balasan and Jaldhaka. None of them is navigable in the mountain valleys; but the Tista, after it debouches on the plains, can be navigated by cargo boats of considerable burthen. Bears, leopards and musk deer are found on the higher mountains, deer on the lower ranges, and 834 a few elephants and tigers on the slopes nearest to the plains. In the lowlands, tigers, rhinoceroses, deer and wild hogs are abundant. A few wolves are also found. Of small game, hares, jungle fowl, peacocks, partridges, snipe, woodcock, wild ducks and geese, and green pigeons are numerous in the tarai, and jungle fowl and pheasants in the hills. The mahseer fish is found in the Tista.

The district of Darjeeling covers an area of 1164 sq. m. It includes two distinct regions: the lower Himalayas to the south of Sikkim, and the tarai, or plains, which stretch from the south of these ranges to the northern borders of Purnea district. The plains where the hills rise are only 300 ft. above sea level, while the mountains rise sharply in spurs ranging from 6000 to 10,000 ft. high. The scenery throughout the hills is picturesque and, in many areas, magnificent. The two highest mountains in the world, Kanchenjunga in Sikkim (28,156 ft.) and Everest in Nepal (29,002 ft.), can be seen from the town of Darjeeling. The main peaks within the district include Phalut (11,811 ft.), Subargum (11,636 ft.), Tanglu (10,084 ft.), Situng, and Sinchal Pahai (8163). The main rivers are the Tista, Great and Little Ranjit, Ramman, Mahananda, Balasan, and Jaldhaka. None of them are navigable in the mountain valleys; however, the Tista, once it flows onto the plains, can be navigated by large cargo boats. Bears, leopards, and musk deer inhabit the higher mountains, while deer are found in the lower ranges, with a few elephants and tigers living on the slopes closest to the plains. In the lowlands, tigers, rhinoceroses, deer, and wild boars are plentiful, with a few wolves also present. Among smaller game, hares, jungle fowl, peacocks, partridges, snipe, woodcock, wild ducks and geese, and green pigeons are common in the tarai, and jungle fowl and pheasants are found in the hills. The mahseer fish is present in the Tista.

In 1901 the population was 249,117, showing an increase of 12% since 1891, compared with an increase of 43% in the previous decade. The inhabitants of the hilly tract consist to a large extent of Nepali immigrants and of aboriginal highland races; in the tarai the people are chiefly Hindus and Mahommedans. The Lepchas are considered to be the aboriginal inhabitants of the hilly portion of the district. They are a fine, frank race, naturally open-hearted and free-handed, fond of change and given to an out-door life; but they do not seem to improve on being brought into contact with civilization. It is thought that they are now being gradually driven out of the district, owing to the increase of regular cultivation, and to the government conservation of the forests. They have no word for plough in their language, and they still follow the nomadic form of tillage known as jum cultivation. This consists in selecting a spot of virgin soil, clearing it of forest and jungle by burning, and scraping the surface with the rudest agricultural implements. The productive powers of the land become exhausted in a few years, when the clearing is abandoned, a new site is chosen, and the same operations are carried on de novo. The Lepchas are also the ordinary out-door labourers on the hills. They have no caste distinctions but speak of themselves as belonging to one of nine septs or clans, who all eat together and intermarry with each other. In the upper or northern tarai, along the base of the hills, the Mechs form the principal ethnical feature. This tribe inhabits the deadly jungle with impunity, and cultivates cotton, rice and other ordinary crops, by the jum process described above. The cultivation of tea was introduced in 1856, and is now a large industry. Cinchona cultivation was introduced by the government in 1862, and has since been taken up by private enterprise. There is a coal mine at Daling. The Darjeeling Himalayan railway of 2 ft. gauge, opened in 1880, runs for 50 m. from Siliguri in the plains on the Eastern Bengal line.

In 1901, the population was 249,117, showing a 12% increase since 1891, compared to a 43% increase in the previous decade. The residents of the hilly area mainly consist of Nepali immigrants and indigenous highland groups; in the tarai, the people are primarily Hindus and Muslims. The Lepchas are considered the original inhabitants of the hilly part of the district. They are a friendly and open-hearted people, inclined to embrace change and enjoy an outdoor lifestyle, but they don't seem to benefit from contact with civilization. It is believed they are gradually being pushed out of the district due to expanding agriculture and government efforts to conserve forests. They have no word for "plough" in their language and still practice a nomadic farming technique known as jum cultivation. This involves selecting a patch of untouched soil, clearing it of trees and shrubs by burning, and scraping the surface with basic farming tools. The land's productivity diminishes after a few years, prompting the abandonment of the clearing to find a new site, where the same process is repeated de novo. The Lepchas also usually work as outdoor laborers in the hills. They don't have caste divisions but identify as belonging to one of nine clans, all of whom eat together and intermarry. In the upper or northern tarai, at the foot of the hills, the Mechs are a predominant ethnic group. This tribe lives in the dense jungle without fear and grows cotton, rice, and other common crops using the jum method mentioned earlier. Tea cultivation began in 1856 and has grown into a significant industry. The government introduced cinchona cultivation in 1862, which has since been taken over by private enterprises. There is a coal mine in Daling. The Darjeeling Himalayan railway, with a 2 ft. gauge, opened in 1880 and runs for 50 miles from Siliguri in the plains on the Eastern Bengal line.

The British connexion with Darjeeling dates from 1816, when, at the close of the war with Nepali, the British made over to the Sikkim raja the tarai tract, which had been wrested from him and annexed by Nepal. In 1835 the nucleus of the present district of British Sikkim or Darjeeling was created by a cession of a portion of the hills by the raja of Sikkim to the British as a sanatorium. A military expedition against Sikkim, rendered necessary in 1850 by the imprisonment of Dr A. Campbell, the superintendent of Darjeeling, and Sir Joseph Hooker, resulted in the stoppage of the allowance granted to the raja for the cession of the hill station of Darjeeling, and in the annexation of the Sikkim tarai at the foot of the hills and of a portion of the hills beyond. In August 1866 the hill territory east of the Tista, acquired as the result of the Bhutan campaign of 1864, was added to the jurisdiction of Darjeeling.

The British connection with Darjeeling goes back to 1816, when, at the end of the war with Nepal, the British handed over the tarai area, which had been taken from the Sikkim raja and annexed by Nepal. In 1835, the core of what is now British Sikkim or Darjeeling was established when the raja of Sikkim ceded a part of the hills to the British for use as a sanatorium. A military expedition against Sikkim became necessary in 1850 after Dr. A. Campbell, the superintendent of Darjeeling, and Sir Joseph Hooker were imprisoned, leading to the cessation of the allowance that had been given to the raja for the cession of the hill station at Darjeeling, as well as the annexation of the Sikkim tarai at the base of the hills and part of the hills beyond. In August 1866, the hill area east of the Tista, acquired as a result of the Bhutan campaign of 1864, was incorporated into the jurisdiction of Darjeeling.


DARLEY, GEORGE (1795-1846), Irish poet, was born in Dublin in 1795. His parents, who were gentle folks of independent means, emigrated to America, leaving the boy in charge of his grandfather at Springfield, Co. Dublin. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, graduating in 1820; but an unfortunate stammer prevented him from going into the church or to the bar, and he established himself in London, where he published his first volume of poems, the Errors of Ecstasie, in 1822, and became a regular contributor to The London Magazine. He was intimate with Cary, the translator of Dante, and with Charles Lamb. In 1826 he published under the name of “Grey Penseval” a volume of prose tales and sketches, Labour in Idleness (1826), one of which, “The Enchanted Lyre,” is plainly autobiographical. Sylvia, or the May Queen (1827, reprint 1892), a fairy opera, met with no success, but about 1830 he became dramatic and art critic to the Athenaeum. His other works are: Nepenthe (1835, reprint 1897), his most considerable poem; introduction to the works of Beaumont and Fletcher (1840); with two plays, Thomas à Becket (1840), and Ethelstan (1841). He died in London on the 23rd of November 1846.

DARLEY, GEORGE (1795-1846), Irish poet, was born in Dublin in 1795. His parents, who were genteel and financially independent, moved to America, leaving the boy in the care of his grandfather in Springfield, Co. Dublin. He attended Trinity College, Dublin, graduating in 1820, but an unfortunate stutter prevented him from pursuing a career in the church or at the bar. He settled in London, where he published his first volume of poems, Errors of Ecstasie, in 1822, and became a regular contributor to The London Magazine. He was close friends with Cary, the translator of Dante, and with Charles Lamb. In 1826, writing under the name “Grey Penseval,” he published a volume of prose stories and sketches called Labour in Idleness (1826), one of which, “The Enchanted Lyre,” is clearly autobiographical. Sylvia, or the May Queen (1827, reprint 1892), a fairy opera, did not succeed, but around 1830 he became a drama and art critic for the Athenaeum. His other works include Nepenthe (1835, reprint 1897), his most significant poem; an introduction to the works of Beaumont and Fletcher (1840); and two plays, Thomas à Becket (1840) and Ethelstan (1841). He died in London on November 23, 1846.

Selections from the Poems of George Darley, with an introduction by R. A. Streatfield, appeared in 1904. See also the edition by Ramsay Colles in the “Muses’ Library” (1906).

Selections from the Poems of George Darley, with an introduction by R. A. Streatfield, was published in 1904. Also see the edition by Ramsay Colles in the “Muses’ Library” (1906).


DARLING, GRACE HORSLEY (1815-1842), British heroine, was born at Bamborough, Northumberland, on the 24th of November 1815. Her father, William Darling, was the keeper of the Longstone (Farne Islands) lighthouse. On the morning of the 7th of September 1838, the “Forfarshire,” bound from Hull to Dundee, with sixty-three persons on board, struck on the Farne Islands, forty-three being drowned. The wreck was observed from the lighthouse, and Darling and his daughter determined to try and reach the survivors. They recognized that though they might be able to get to the wreck, they would be unable to return without the assistance of the shipwrecked crew, but they took this risk without hesitation. By a combination of daring, strength and skill, the father and daughter reached the wreck in their coble and brought back four men and a woman to the lighthouse. Darling and two of the rescued men then returned to the wreck and brought off the four remaining survivors. This gallant exploit made Grace Darling and her father famous. The Humane Society at once voted them its gold medal, the treasury made a grant, and a public subscription was organized. Grace Darling, who had always been delicate, died of consumption on the 20th of October 1842.

DARLING, GRACE HORSLEY (1815-1842), British heroine, was born in Bamborough, Northumberland, on November 24, 1815. Her father, William Darling, was the keeper of the Longstone lighthouse on the Farne Islands. On the morning of September 7, 1838, the “Forfarshire,” traveling from Hull to Dundee with sixty-three people on board, ran aground on the Farne Islands, resulting in forty-three drownings. The wreck was spotted from the lighthouse, and Darling and his daughter decided to try and reach the survivors. They understood that although they might make it to the wreck, they wouldn’t be able to return without help from the shipwrecked crew, but they took this risk without hesitation. Using a mix of bravery, strength, and skill, the father and daughter reached the wreck in their coble and rescued four men and a woman, bringing them back to the lighthouse. Darling and two of the rescued men then went back to the wreck and saved the remaining four survivors. This brave act made Grace Darling and her father well-known. The Humane Society quickly awarded them its gold medal, the treasury provided a grant, and a public fundraising effort was organized. Grace Darling, who had always been fragile, passed away from consumption on October 20, 1842.

See Grace Darling, her true story (London, 1880).

See Grace Darling, her true story (London, 1880).


DARLING, a river of Australia. It rises in Queensland and flows into New South Wales, forming for a considerable distance the boundary of the two colonies; in its upper reaches it is known as the Barwon, but from Bourke to its junction on the Victorian border with the river Murray, it is called the Darling. Its length is 1160 m., and with its affluents it drains an area of about 200,000 sq. m. During the dry season its course is marked by a series of shallow pools, but during the winter, when it is subject to sudden floods, it is navigable as far as Bourke for steamers of light draft. Excepting a narrow strip on the banks of the river, the country through which it passes is, for the most part, an arid plain.

DARLING, is a river in Australia. It starts in Queensland and flows into New South Wales, serving as the border between the two regions for a significant stretch. In its upper sections, it's referred to as the Barwon, but from Bourke to where it meets the Murray River on the Victorian border, it's called the Darling. It stretches 1160 kilometers, and along with its tributaries, it drains an area of about 200,000 square kilometers. During the dry season, the river is marked by a series of shallow pools, but in winter, when it experiences sudden floods, it's navigable by light-draft steamers as far as Bourke. Aside from a narrow strip along the riverbanks, the land it flows through is mostly a dry plain.


DARLINGTON, a market town and municipal and parliamentary borough of Durham, England, 232 m. N. by W. of London, on the North-Eastern railway. Pop. (1891) 38,060; (1901) 44,511. It lies in a slightly undulating plain on the small river Skerne, a tributary of the Tees, not far from the main river. Its appearance is almost wholly modern, but there is a fine old parish church dedicated to St Cuthbert. It is cruciform, and in style mainly transitional Norman. It has a central tower surmounted by a spire of the 14th century, which necessitated the building of a massive stone screen across the chancel arch to support the piers. Traces of an earlier church were discovered in the course of restoration. Educational establishments include an Elizabethan grammar school, a training college for school-mistresses (British and Foreign School Society), and a technical school. There is a park of forty-four acres. The industries of Darlington are large and varied. They include worsted spinning mills; collieries, ironstone mines, quarries and brickworks; the manufacture of iron and steel, both in the rough and in the form of finished articles, as locomotives, bridge castings, ships’ engines, gun castings and shells, &c. The parliamentary borough returns one member. The town was incorporated in 1867, and the corporation consists of a mayor, six aldermen and eighteen councillors. Area, 3956 acres.

DARLINGTON, is a market town and municipal and parliamentary borough in Durham, England, located 232 miles north-northwest of London, on the North-Eastern Railway. Population (1891) 38,060; (1901) 44,511. It sits on a slightly rolling plain along the small river Skerne, which is a tributary of the Tees, not far from the main river. Its overall look is mostly modern, but there’s a beautiful old parish church dedicated to St. Cuthbert. It has a cruciform shape and is mainly in a transitional Norman style. The church features a central tower topped with a spire from the 14th century, which required the construction of a sturdy stone screen across the chancel arch to support the pillars. Evidence of an earlier church was found during restoration work. Educational institutions in the town include an Elizabethan grammar school, a training college for female teachers (British and Foreign School Society), and a technical school. There’s also a park that covers forty-four acres. Darlington has a diverse and extensive range of industries, including worsted spinning mills, collieries, ironstone mines, quarries, and brickworks, as well as the production of iron and steel, both in raw form and as finished products like locomotives, bridge castings, ship engines, gun castings, and shells, etc. The parliamentary borough elects one member. The town was incorporated in 1867, with the local government consisting of a mayor, six aldermen, and eighteen councillors. Area: 3,956 acres.

Not long after the bishop and monks of Lindisfarne had settled at Durham in 995, Styr the son of Ulf gave them the vill of Darlington (Dearthington, Darnington), which by 1083 had grown into importance, probably owing to its situation on the road from Watling Street to the mouth of the Tees. Bishop William of St Carileph in that year changed the church to a collegiate church, and placed there certain canons whom he removed from Durham. Bishop Hugh de Puiset rebuilt the church and built a manor house which was for many years the occasional residence of the bishops of Durham. Boldon Book, 835 dated 1183, contains the first mention of Darlington as a borough, rated at £5, while half a mark was due from the dyers of cloth. The next account of the town is in Bishop Hatfield’s Survey (c. 1380), which states that “Ingelram Gentill and his partners hold the borough of Derlyngton with the profits of the mills and dye houses and other profits pertaining to the borough rendering yearly four score and thirteen pounds and six shillings.” Darlington possesses no early charter, but claimed its privileges as a borough by a prescriptive right. Until the 19th century it was governed by a bailiff appointed by the bishop. The mention of dyers in the Boldon Book and Hatfield’s Survey probably indicates the existence of woollen manufacture. Before the 19th century Darlington was noted for the manufacture of linen, worsted and flax, but it owes its modern importance to the opening of the railway between Darlington and Stockton on the 27th of September 1825. “Locomotive No. 1,” the first that ever ran on a public railway, stands in Bank Top station, a remarkable relic of the enterprise. As part of the palatinate of Durham, Darlington sent no members to parliament until 1862, when it was allowed to return one member. The fairs and markets in Darlington were formerly held by the bishop and were in existence as early as the 11th century. According to Leland, Darlington was in his time the best market town in the bishopric with the exception of Durham. In 1664 the bishop, finding that the inhabitants of the town had set up a market “in the season of the year unaccustomed,” i.e. from the fortnight before Christmas to Whit Monday, prohibited them from continuing it. The markets and fairs were finally in 1854 purchased by the local authority, and now belong to the corporation.

Not long after the bishop and monks of Lindisfarne settled at Durham in 995, Styr, the son of Ulf, gave them the village of Darlington (Dearthington, Darnington), which by 1083 had grown in importance, likely due to its location on the road from Watling Street to the mouth of the Tees. In that year, Bishop William of St Carileph changed the church to a collegiate church and appointed certain canons from Durham to it. Bishop Hugh de Puiset rebuilt the church and constructed a manor house that served as an occasional residence for the bishops of Durham for many years. Boldon Book, 835 dated 1183, contains the first mention of Darlington as a borough, rated at £5, while half a mark was owed by the cloth dyers. The next record of the town is in Bishop Hatfield’s Survey (c. 1380), which states that “Ingelram Gentill and his partners hold the borough of Derlyngton with the profits of the mills and dye houses and other profits pertaining to the borough, rendering yearly four score and thirteen pounds and six shillings.” Darlington has no early charter but claimed its borough privileges by long-standing right. Until the 19th century, it was governed by a bailiff appointed by the bishop. The mention of dyers in the Boldon Book and Hatfield’s Survey likely indicates the presence of woolen manufacturing. Before the 19th century, Darlington was known for the production of linen, worsted, and flax, but its modern significance arises from the opening of the railway between Darlington and Stockton on September 27, 1825. “Locomotive No. 1,” the first to ever run on a public railway, is on display at Bank Top station, a remarkable relic of this venture. As part of the palatinate of Durham, Darlington had no representatives in parliament until 1862, when it was allowed to send one member. The fairs and markets in Darlington were once held by the bishop and had been in existence as far back as the 11th century. According to Leland, Darlington was the best market town in the bishopric during his time, except for Durham. In 1664, the bishop, noticing that the town's residents had established a market “in the season of the year unaccustomed,” meaning from two weeks before Christmas to Whit Monday, prohibited them from continuing it. The markets and fairs were finally purchased by the local authority in 1854 and now belong to the corporation.


DARLINGTONIA (called after William Darlington, an American botanist), a Californian pitcher-plant, belonging to the order Sarraceniaceae. There is only one species, D. californica, which is found at 5000 ft. altitude on the Sierra Nevadas of California, growing in sphagnum-bogs along with sundews and rushes. The pitcher-like leaves form a cluster, and are 1 to 2 ft. high, slender, erect, and end in a rounded hooded top, from which hangs a blade shaped like a fish-tail which guards the entrance to the pitcher. Insects are attracted to the leaves by the bright colouring, especially of the upper part; entering they pass down the narrow funnel guided by downward pointing hairs which also prevent their ascent. They form a putrefying mass in the bottom of the pitcher, and the products of their decomposition are presumably absorbed by the leaf for food.

DARLINGTONIA (named after William Darlington, an American botanist) is a Californian pitcher plant that belongs to the Sarraceniaceae family. There is only one species, D. californica, which is found at an altitude of 5000 ft in the Sierra Nevadas of California, growing in sphagnum bogs alongside sundews and rushes. The pitcher-like leaves grow in clusters and reach heights of 1 to 2 ft; they are slender, upright, and end in a rounded hooded top, from which hangs a blade shaped like a fish tail that guards the entrance of the pitcher. Insects are drawn to the brightly colored leaves, particularly the upper part; upon entering, they slide down the narrow funnel, guided by downward-pointing hairs that prevent their escape. They eventually form a decaying mass at the bottom of the pitcher, and the resulting decomposition products are likely absorbed by the leaf as nourishment.

Darlingtonia californica.

DARLY, MATTHIAS, 18th-century English caricaturist, designer and engraver. This extremely versatile artist not only issued political caricatures, but designed ceilings, chimney-pieces, mirror frames, girandoles, decorative panels and other mobiliary accessories, made many engravings for Thomas Chippendale, and sold his own productions over the counter. He was apparently an architect by profession. The first publication which can be attributed to him with certainty is a coloured caricature, “The Cricket Players of Europe” (1741). In 1754 he issued A new Book of Chinese Designs, which was intended to minister to the passing craze for furniture and household decorations in the Chinese style. It was in this year that he engraved many of the plates for the Director of Thomas Chippendale. He published from many addresses, most of them in the Strand or its immediate neighbourhood, and his shop was for a long period perhaps the most important of its kind in London. In his book Nollekens and his Times, J. T. Smith, writing of Richard Cosway, says:—“So ridiculously foppish did he become that Matth. Darly, the famous caricature print seller, introduced an etching of him in his window in the Strand as the ‘Macaroni Miniature Painter.’” Darly was for many years in partnership with a man named Edwards, and together they published many political prints, which were originally issued separately and collected annually into volumes under the title of Political and Satirical History. Darly was a member both of the Incorporated Society of Artists and the Free Society of Artists, forerunners of the Royal Academy, and to their exhibitions he contributed many architectural drawings, together with a profile etching of himself (1775). Upon one of these etchings, published from 39 Strand, he is described as “Professor of Ornament to the Academy of Great Britain.” Darly’s most important publication was The Ornamental Architect or Young Artists’ Instructor (1770-1771), a title which was changed in the edition of 1773 to A Compleat Body of Architecture, embellished with a great Variety of Ornaments. He also issued Sixty Vases by English, French and Italian Masters (1767). In addition to his immense mass of other productions Darly executed many book plates, illustrated various books and cabinet-makers’ catalogues, and gave lessons in etching. His skill as a caricaturist brought him into close personal relations with the politicians of his time, and in 1763 he was instrumental in saving John Wilkes, whose partisan he was, from death at the hands of James Dunn, who had determined to kill him. Darly, who described himself as “Liveryman and block maker,” issued his last caricature in October 1780, and as his shop, No. 39 Strand, was let to a new tenant in the following year, it is to be presumed that he had by that time died, or become incapable of further work. As a designer of furniture Darly travelled in a dozen years or so from the extremes of pseudo-Chinese affectation to classical severity of the type popularized by the brothers Adam.

DARLY, MATTHIAS, 18th-century English caricaturist, designer, and engraver. This highly versatile artist not only created political caricatures, but also designed ceilings, chimney pieces, mirror frames, girandoles, decorative panels, and other furnishings. He made many engravings for Thomas Chippendale and sold his own work directly to customers. He was apparently an architect by profession. The first publication definitely linked to him is a colored caricature titled “The Cricket Players of Europe” (1741). In 1754, he published A New Book of Chinese Designs, which catered to the trendy demand for furniture and home decor in the Chinese style. That same year, he engraved many of the plates for the Director by Thomas Chippendale. He published from various addresses, most located in the Strand or nearby, and his shop was likely the most significant of its kind in London for a long time. In his book Nollekens and His Times, J. T. Smith writes about Richard Cosway, stating:—“He became so absurdly foppish that Matth. Darly, the famous caricature print seller, featured an etching of him in his window in the Strand as the ‘Macaroni Miniature Painter.’” Darly partnered with a man named Edwards for many years, and together they published numerous political prints, which were initially released separately and then collected annually into volumes titled Political and Satirical History. Darly was a member of both the Incorporated Society of Artists and the Free Society of Artists, predecessors of the Royal Academy, contributing many architectural drawings to their exhibitions, along with a profile etching of himself (1775). On one of these etchings, published from 39 Strand, he is described as “Professor of Ornament to the Academy of Great Britain.” Darly’s most significant publication was The Ornamental Architect or Young Artists’ Instructor (1770-1771), which was retitled in the 1773 edition to A Compleat Body of Architecture, Embellished with a Great Variety of Ornaments. He also released Sixty Vases by English, French and Italian Masters (1767). Besides his vast array of other works, Darly created many book plates, illustrated various books and cabinet-makers' catalogs, and provided etching lessons. His talent as a caricaturist led him to develop close personal relationships with the politicians of his time, and in 1763, he played a crucial role in saving John Wilkes, whom he supported, from being killed by James Dunn, who was intent on murdering him. Darly, who referred to himself as “Liveryman and block maker,” released his last caricature in October 1780, and since his shop at No. 39 Strand was rented to a new tenant the following year, it can be assumed he had either passed away or was no longer able to work. As a furniture designer, Darly evolved over about a dozen years from extreme pseudo-Chinese styles to the classical austerity popularized by the Adam brothers.


DARMESTETER, JAMES (1849-1894), French author and antiquarian, was born of Jewish parents on the 28th of March 1849 at Château Salins, in Alsace. The family name had originated in their earlier home of Darmstadt. He was educated in Paris, where, under the guidance of Michel Bréal and Abel Bergaigne, he imbibed a love for Oriental studies, to which for a time he entirely devoted himself. He was a man of vast intellectual range. In 1875 he published a thesis on the mythology of the Zend Avesta, and in 1877 became teacher of Zend at the École des Hautes Études. He followed up his researches with his Études iraniennes (1883), and ten years later published a complete translation of the Zend Avesta, with historical and philological commentary (3 vols., 1892-1893), in the Annales du musée Guimet. He also edited the Zend Avesta for Max Müller’s Sacred Books of the East. Darmesteter regarded the extant texts as far more recent than was commonly believed, placing the earliest in the 1st century B.C., and the bulk in the 3rd century A.D. In 1885 he was appointed professor in the Collège de France, and was sent to India in 1886 on a mission to collect the popular songs of the Afghans, a translation of which, with a valuable essay on the Afghan language and literature, he published on his return. His impressions of English dominion in India 836 were conveyed in Lettres sur l’Inde (1888). England interested him deeply; and his attachment to the gifted English writer, A. Mary F. Robinson, whom he shortly afterwards married (and who in 1901 became the wife of Professor E. Duclaux, director of the Pasteur Institute at Paris), led him to translate her poems into French in 1888. Two years after his death a collection of excellent essays on English subjects was published in English. He also wrote Le Mahdi depuis les origines de l’Islam jusqu’à nos jours (1885); Les Origines de la poésie persane (1888); Prophètes d’Israël (1892), and other books on topics connected with the east, and from 1883 onwards drew up the annual reports of the Société Asiatique. He had just become connected with the Revue de Paris, when his delicate constitution succumbed to a slight attack of illness on the 19th of October 1894.

DARMESTETER, JAMES (1849-1894), a French author and antiquarian, was born to Jewish parents on March 28, 1849, in Château Salins, Alsace. The family name originated from their previous home in Darmstadt. He was educated in Paris, where, under the mentorship of Michel Bréal and Abel Bergaigne, he developed a passion for Oriental studies, dedicating himself to it for a time. He had a vast intellectual range. In 1875, he published a thesis on the mythology of the Zend Avesta, and in 1877, he became a teacher of Zend at the École des Hautes Études. He continued his research with his Études iraniennes (1883) and a decade later published a complete translation of the Zend Avesta, accompanied by historical and philological commentary (3 vols., 1892-1893), in the Annales du musée Guimet. He also edited the Zend Avesta for Max Müller’s Sacred Books of the East. Darmesteter believed that the existing texts were much more recent than commonly thought, placing the earliest in the 1st century B.C. and the majority in the 3rd century A.D. In 1885, he was appointed professor at the Collège de France and was sent to India in 1886 to collect popular Afghan songs, which he later translated along with a valuable essay on Afghan language and literature upon his return. His impressions of British rule in India 836 were shared in Lettres sur l’Inde (1888). He was deeply interested in England; his connection with the talented English writer, A. Mary F. Robinson, whom he soon married (and who in 1901 became the wife of Professor E. Duclaux, director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris), led him to translate her poems into French in 1888. Two years after his death, a collection of outstanding essays on English subjects was published in English. He also authored Le Mahdi depuis les origines de l’Islam jusqu’à nos jours (1885); Les Origines de la poésie persane (1888); Prophètes d’Israël (1892), among other books related to the East, and from 1883 onwards, he prepared the annual reports for the Société Asiatique. He had just begun working with the Revue de Paris when his fragile health gave way to a minor illness on October 19, 1894.

His elder brother, Arsène Darmesteter (1846-1888), was a distinguished philologist and man of letters. He studied under Gaston Paris at the École des Hautes Études, and became professor of Old French language and literature at the Sorbonne. His Life of Words appeared in English in 1888. He also collaborated with Adolphe Hatzfeld in a Dictionnaire général de la langue française (2 vols., 1895-1900). Among his most important work was the elucidation of Old French by means of the many glosses in the medieval writings of Rashi and other French Jews. His scattered papers on romance and Jewish philology were collected by James Darmesteter as Arsène Darmesteter, reliques scientifiques (2 vols., 1890). His valuable Cours de grammaire historique de la langue française was edited after his death by E. Muret and L. Sudre (1891-1895; English edition, 1902).

His older brother, Arsène Darmesteter (1846-1888), was a well-respected philologist and writer. He studied under Gaston Paris at the École des Hautes Études and became a professor of Old French language and literature at the Sorbonne. His Life of Words was published in English in 1888. He also worked with Adolphe Hatzfeld on a Dictionnaire général de la langue française (2 vols., 1895-1900). Among his most significant contributions was clarifying Old French through various glosses in the medieval writings of Rashi and other French Jews. His assorted papers on Romance and Jewish philology were compiled by James Darmesteter as Arsène Darmesteter, reliques scientifiques (2 vols., 1890). His important Cours de grammaire historique de la langue française was published posthumously by E. Muret and L. Sudre (1891-1895; English edition, 1902).

There is an éloge of James Darmesteter in the Journal asiatique (1894, vol. iv. pp. 519-534), and a notice by Henri Cordier, with a list of his writings, in The Royal Asiatic Society’s Journal (January 1895); see also Gaston Paris, “James Darmesteter,” in Penseurs et poètes (1896, pp. 1-61).

There is an éloge of James Darmesteter in the Journal asiatique (1894, vol. iv. pp. 519-534), and a notice by Henri Cordier, including a list of his writings, in The Royal Asiatic Society’s Journal (January 1895); see also Gaston Paris, “James Darmesteter,” in Penseurs et poètes (1896, pp. 1-61).


DARMSTADT, a city of Germany, capital of the grand-duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt, on a plain gently sloping from the Odenwald to the Rhine, 21 m. by rail S.E. from Mainz and 17 m. S. from Frankfort-on-Main. Pop. (1905) 83,000. It is the residence of the grand-duke and the seat of government of the duchy. Darmstadt consists of an old and a new town, the streets of the former being narrow and gloomy and presenting no attractive features. The new town, however, which includes the greater part of the city, contains broad streets and several fine squares. Among the latter is the stately Luisenplatz, on which are the house of parliament, the old palace and the post office, and in the centre of which is a column surmounted by the statue of the grand-duke Louis I., the founder of the new town. The square is crossed by the Rhein-strasse, the most important thoroughfare in the city, leading directly from the railway station to the ducal palace. This last, a complex of buildings, dating from various centuries, but possessing few points of special interest, is surrounded by grounds occupying the site of the old moat. Opposite to it, on the north side, and adjoining the pretty palace gardens, are the court theatre and the armoury, and a little farther west the handsome buildings of the new museum, erected in 1905 and containing the valuable scientific and art collections of the state, which were formerly housed in the palace: a library of 600,000 volumes and 4000 MSS., a museum of Egyptian and German antiquities, a picture gallery with masterpieces of old German and Dutch schools, a natural history collection and the state archives. To the right of the entrance to the palace gardens is the tomb of the “great landgravine,” Caroline Henrietta, wife of the landgrave Louis IX., surmounted by a marble urn, the gift of Frederick the Great of Prussia, bearing the inscription femina sexu, ingenio vir. To the south of the castle lies the old town, with the market square, the town hall (lately restored and enlarged) and the town church. Of the eight churches (seven Evangelical) only the Roman Catholic is in any way imposing. There are two synagogues. The town possesses a technical high school, having (since 1900) power to confer the degree of doctor of engineering, and attended by about 2000 students, two gymnasia, a school of agriculture, an artisans’ school and a botanical garden. The chemist, Justus von Liebig, was born in Darmstadt in 1803. Among the chief manufactures are the production of machinery, carpets, playing cards, chemicals, tobacco, hats, wine and beer.

Darmstadt, a city in Germany, is the capital of the Grand Duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt, situated on a plain that gently slopes from the Odenwald to the Rhine, 21 miles by rail southeast of Mainz and 17 miles south of Frankfurt. The population in 1905 was 83,000. It is the residence of the grand duke and the seat of government for the duchy. Darmstadt has an old town and a new town; the streets in the old part are narrow and dreary, lacking any attractive features. However, the new town, which makes up most of the city, boasts wide streets and several beautiful squares. One of these is the impressive Luisenplatz, home to the parliament building, the old palace, and the post office, with a column in the center topped by a statue of Grand Duke Louis I, the founder of the new town. The square is intersected by Rhein-strasse, the city's main road, which runs directly from the railway station to the ducal palace. This palace, a collection of buildings from different periods with few notable attractions, is surrounded by grounds that used to be the old moat. Across from it, on the north side, next to the lovely palace gardens, are the court theater and the armory, and a bit further west is the impressive new museum built in 1905, housing the valuable scientific and art collections of the state that were previously in the palace: a library with 600,000 volumes and 4,000 manuscripts, a museum of Egyptian and German antiquities, a picture gallery featuring masterpieces from old German and Dutch schools, a natural history collection, and the state archives. To the right of the entrance to the palace gardens is the tomb of the “great landgravine,” Caroline Henrietta, wife of Landgrave Louis IX, topped with a marble urn gifted by Frederick the Great of Prussia, inscribed with femina sexu, ingenio vir. South of the palace lies the old town, which includes the market square, the town hall (recently restored and expanded), and the town church. Of the eight churches (seven Evangelical), only the Roman Catholic church is notably impressive. There are two synagogues. The town is home to a technical high school, which has had the authority to confer a doctoral degree in engineering since 1900 and is attended by around 2,000 students, along with two gymnasiums, a school of agriculture, an artisans’ school, and a botanical garden. The chemist Justus von Liebig was born in Darmstadt in 1803. Among the major industries are machinery production, carpets, playing cards, chemicals, tobacco, hats, wine, and beer.

The surroundings of Darmstadt are attractive and contain many features of interest. To the east of the town lies the Mathildenhöhe, formerly a park and now converted into villa residences. Here are the Alice hospital and the pretty Russian church, built (1898-1899) by the emperor Nicholas II. of Russia in memory of the empress Maria, wife of Alexander II. In the vicinity is the Rosenhöhe, with the mausoleum of the ducal house, with the tomb of the grand-duchess Alice, daughter of Queen Victoria of England.

The area around Darmstadt is appealing and has many interesting sights. To the east of the town is the Mathildenhöhe, which used to be a park but has now been turned into villa residences. This location includes the Alice hospital and the beautiful Russian church, built (1898-1899) by Emperor Nicholas II of Russia in memory of Empress Maria, the wife of Alexander II. Nearby is the Rosenhöhe, which features the mausoleum of the ducal family and the tomb of Grand-Duchess Alice, daughter of Queen Victoria of England.

Darmstadt is mentioned in the 11th century, but in the 14th century it was still a village, held by the counts of Katzenelnbogen. It came by marriage into the possession of the house of Hesse in 1479, the male line of the house of Katzenelnbogen having in that year become extinct. The imperial army took it in the Schmalkaldic War, and destroyed the old castle. In 1567, after the death of Philip the Magnanimous, his youngest son George received Darmstadt and chose it as his residence. He was the founder of the line of Hesse-Darmstadt. Its most brilliant days were those of the reign of Louis X. (1790-1830), the first grand-duke, under whom the new town was built.

Darmstadt is first mentioned in the 11th century, but by the 14th century, it was still just a village, owned by the counts of Katzenelnbogen. It came into the hands of the house of Hesse through marriage in 1479, after the male line of the house of Katzenelnbogen died out that year. The imperial army captured it during the Schmalkaldic War and destroyed the old castle. In 1567, after the death of Philip the Magnanimous, his youngest son George received Darmstadt and chose it as his residence. He founded the line of Hesse-Darmstadt. Its most notable period was during the reign of Louis X. (1790-1830), the first grand-duke, under whom the new town was developed.

See Walther, Darmstadt wie es war und wie es geworden (Darms. 1865); and Zernin und Wörner, Darmstadt und seine Umgebung (Zürich, 1890).

See Walther, Darmstadt: How It Was and How It Has Changed (Darms. 1865); and Zernin and Wörner, Darmstadt and Its Surroundings (Zürich, 1890).


DARNLEY, HENRY STEWART or STUART, Lord (1545-1567), earl of Ross and duke of Albany, second husband of Mary, queen of Scots, was the eldest son of Matthew Stewart, earl of Lennox (1516-1571), and through his mother Lady Margaret Douglas (1515-1578) was a great-grandson of the English king Henry VII. Born at Temple Newsam in Yorkshire on the 7th of December 1545, he was educated in England, and his lack of intellectual ability was compensated for by exceptional skill in military exercises. After the death of Francis II. of France in 1560 Darnley was sent into that country by his mother, who hoped that he would become king of England on Elizabeth’s death, and who already entertained the idea of his marriage with Mary, queen of Scots, the widow of Francis, as a means to this end. Consequently in 1561 both Lady Margaret and her son, who were English subjects, were imprisoned by Elizabeth; but they were soon released, and Darnley spent some time at the English court before proceeding to Scotland in February 1565. The marriage of Mary and Darnley was now a question of practical politics, and the queen, having nursed her new suitor through an attack of measles, soon made up her mind to wed him, saying he “was the properest and best proportioned long man that ever she had seen.” The attitude of Elizabeth towards this marriage is difficult to understand. She had permitted Darnley to journey to Scotland, and it has been asserted that she entangled Mary into this union; but on the other hand she and her council declared their dislike of the proposed marriage, and ordered Darnley and his father to repair to London, a command which was disobeyed. In March 1565 there were rumours that the marriage had already taken place, but it was actually celebrated at Holyrood on the 29th of July 1565.

DARNLEY, HENRY STEWART or STUART, Lord (1545-1567), earl of Ross and duke of Albany, was the second husband of Mary, queen of Scots. He was the eldest son of Matthew Stewart, earl of Lennox (1516-1571), and through his mother, Lady Margaret Douglas (1515-1578), he was a great-grandson of the English king Henry VII. Born at Temple Newsam in Yorkshire on December 7, 1545, he was educated in England, but his lack of intellectual ability was offset by exceptional skill in military exercises. After the death of Francis II of France in 1560, Darnley was sent to France by his mother, who hoped he would become king of England after Elizabeth’s death, and she was already considering a marriage between him and Mary, queen of Scots, the widow of Francis, as a way to achieve this goal. As a result, in 1561 both Lady Margaret and her son, who were subjects of England, were imprisoned by Elizabeth; however, they were soon released, and Darnley spent some time at the English court before heading to Scotland in February 1565. The marriage between Mary and Darnley became a matter of practical politics, and after caring for her new suitor during a measles outbreak, the queen quickly decided to marry him, saying he “was the most suitable and best-proportioned tall man she had ever seen.” Elizabeth's stance on this marriage is hard to understand. She allowed Darnley to go to Scotland, and it has been suggested that she involved Mary in this union; yet, on the other hand, she and her council expressed their disapproval of the marriage and ordered Darnley and his father to return to London, a command they ignored. In March 1565, there were rumors that the marriage had already taken place, but it was officially celebrated at Holyrood on July 29, 1565.

Although Mary had doubtless a short infatuation for Darnley, the union was mainly due to political motives, and in view of the characters of bride and bridegroom it is not surprising that trouble soon arose between them. Contrary to his expectations Darnley did not receive the crown matrimonial, and his foolish and haughty behaviour, his vicious habits, and his boisterous companions did not improve matters. He was on bad terms with the regent Murray and other powerful nobles, who disliked the marriage and were intriguing with Elizabeth. Scotland was filled with rumours of plot and assassination, and civil war was only narrowly avoided. Unable to take any serious part in affairs of state, Darnley soon became estranged from his wife. He believed that Mary’s relations with David Rizzio injured him as a husband, and was easily persuaded to assent to the murder of the Italian, a crime in which he took part. Immediately afterwards, however, flattered and cajoled by the queen, he 837 betrayed his associates to her, and assisted her to escape from Holyrood to Dunbar. Owing to these revelations he was deserted and distrusted by his companions in the murder, and soon lost the queen’s favour. In these circumstances he decided to leave Scotland, but a variety of causes prevented his departure; and meanwhile at Craigmillar a band of nobles undertook to free Mary from her husband, who refused to be present at the baptism of his son, James, at Stirling in December 1566. The details of the conspiracy at Craigmillar are not clear, nor is it certain what part, if any, Mary took in these proceedings. The first intention may have been to obtain a divorce for the queen, but it was soon decided that Darnley must be killed. Rumours of the plot came to his ears, and he fled from Stirling to Glasgow, where he fell ill, possibly by poisoning, and where Mary came to visit him. Another reconciliation took place between husband and wife, and Darnley was persuaded to journey with Mary by easy stages to Edinburgh. Apartments were prepared for the pair at Kirk o’ Field, a house just inside the city walls, and here they remained for a few days. On the evening of the 9th of February 1567 Mary took an affectionate farewell of her husband, and went to attend some gaieties in Edinburgh. A few hours later, on the morning of the 10th, Kirk o’ Field was blown up with gunpowder. Darnley’s body was found at some distance from the house, and it is supposed that he was strangled whilst making his escape. The remains were afterwards buried in the chapel at Holyrood.

Although Mary probably had a brief crush on Darnley, their marriage was mainly motivated by political reasons. Given the personalities of both the bride and groom, it’s not surprising that conflict arose quickly between them. Contrary to what he expected, Darnley did not receive the crown matrimonial, and his foolish and arrogant behavior, along with his bad habits and rowdy friends, only made things worse. He clashed with the regent Murray and other influential nobles who disapproved of the marriage and were conspiring with Elizabeth. Scotland was rife with rumors of plots and assassinations, and civil war was narrowly avoided. Unable to take any real role in state affairs, Darnley soon became distant from his wife. He believed that Mary’s relationship with David Rizzio harmed his position as her husband and was easily convinced to agree to the murder of the Italian, in which he participated. Right afterward, however, flattered and manipulated by the queen, he betrayed his accomplices to her and helped her escape from Holyrood to Dunbar. As a result of these revelations, he was abandoned and distrusted by his co-conspirators and soon lost the queen’s favor. Under these circumstances, he decided to leave Scotland, but various factors prevented him from doing so; meanwhile, at Craigmillar, a group of nobles plotted to free Mary from her husband, who refused to attend the baptism of their son, James, in Stirling in December 1566. The details of the conspiracy at Craigmillar are unclear, and it’s uncertain what role, if any, Mary played in these events. The initial intention might have been to secure a divorce for the queen, but it was soon decided that Darnley had to be killed. Rumors of the plot reached his ears, and he fled from Stirling to Glasgow, where he fell ill, possibly due to poisoning, and where Mary came to visit him. Another reconciliation occurred between the husband and wife, and Darnley was persuaded to travel with Mary in a slow journey to Edinburgh. Accommodations were prepared for them at Kirk o’ Field, a house just inside the city walls, where they stayed for a few days. On the evening of February 9, 1567, Mary said a loving goodbye to her husband and went to attend some festivities in Edinburgh. A few hours later, on the morning of February 10, Kirk o’ Field was blown up with gunpowder. Darnley’s body was found some distance from the house, and it’s believed he was strangled while trying to escape. The remains were later buried in the chapel at Holyrood.

Much discussion has taken place about this crime, and the guilt or innocence of Mary is still a question of doubt and debate. It seems highly probable, however, that the queen was accessory to the murder, which was organized by her lover and third husband, Bothwell (q.v.). As the father of King James I., Darnley is the direct ancestor of all the sovereigns of England since 1603. Personally he was a very insignificant character and his sole title to fame is his connexion with Mary, queen of Scots.

A lot of discussion has happened about this crime, and the question of Mary's guilt or innocence is still up for debate. However, it seems very likely that the queen was involved in the murder, which was planned by her lover and third husband, Bothwell (q.v.). As the father of King James I, Darnley is the direct ancestor of all the English monarchs since 1603. Personally, he was a rather unremarkable person, and his only claim to fame is his connection to Mary, queen of Scots.

For further information, and also for a list of the works bearing on his life, see the article Mary, Queen of Scots.

For more information, and for a list of works related to his life, see the article Mary, Queen of Scots.


DARRANG, a district of British India, in the province of Eastern Bengal and Assam. It lies between the Bhutan and Daphla Hills and the Brahmaputra, including many islands in the river. The administrative headquarters are at Tezpur. Its area is 3418 sq. m. It is for the most part a level plain watered by many tributaries of the Brahmaputra. The two subdivisions of Tezpur Mangaldai differ greatly in character. Tezpur is part of Upper Assam and shares in the prosperity which tea cultivation has brought to that part of the valley. In this portion of the district there are still large areas of excellent land awaiting settlement, and the cultivator finds a market for his produce in the flourishing tea-gardens, to which large quantities of coolies are imported every year. In Mangaldai, on the other hand, most of the good rice land was settled about 1880-1890 when the subdivision had a population of 146 to the square mile, as against 42 for Tezpur; the soil is not favourable for tea, and the population is stationary or receding. In 1901 the population of the whole district was 337,313, showing an increase of 10% in the decade. The principal grain-crop is rice. The principal means of communication is by river. A steam tramway of 2½ ft. gauge has been opened from Tezpur to Balipara, a distance of 20 m.

Darrang is a district in British India, located in the province of Eastern Bengal and Assam. It's situated between the Bhutan and Daphla Hills and the Brahmaputra River, encompassing several islands in the river. The administrative center is in Tezpur. The area covers 3,418 square miles. Mostly, it’s a flat plain fed by numerous tributaries of the Brahmaputra. The two subdivisions, Tezpur and Mangaldai, are quite different from each other. Tezpur is part of Upper Assam and benefits from the prosperity brought by tea cultivation in the region. In this area of the district, there are still large stretches of prime land available for settlement, and farmers find a market for their crops in the thriving tea gardens, which bring in a substantial number of laborers each year. Conversely, in Mangaldai, most of the prime rice land was settled around 1880-1890, when the subdivision had a population of 146 per square mile compared to Tezpur’s 42; the soil there isn’t suitable for tea, and the population remains stable or is declining. In 1901, the total population of the district was 337,313, showing a growth of 10% over the decade. The main crop grown is rice. The primary mode of transportation is by river. A steam tramway with a gauge of 2½ feet has been established from Tezpur to Balipara, covering a distance of 20 miles.

Darrang originally formed, according to tradition, part of the dominions of Bana Raja, who was defeated by Krishna in a battle near Tezpur (“the town of blood”). The massive granite ruins found near by prove that the place must have been the seat of powerful and civilized rulers. In the 16th century Darrang was subject to the Koch king of Kamarupa, Nar Narayan, and on the division of his dominions among his heirs passed to an independent line of rajas. Early in the 17th century the raja Bali Narayan invoked the aid of the Ahoms of Upper Assam against the Mussulman invaders; after his defeat and death in 1637 the Ahoms dominated the whole district, and the Darrang rajas sank into petty feudatories. About 1785 they took advantage of the decay of the Ahom kingdom to try and re-establish their independence, but they were defeated by a British expedition in 1792, and in 1826 Darrang, with the rest of Assam, passed under British control.

Darrang originally was believed to be part of the territory of Bana Raja, who was defeated by Krishna in a battle near Tezpur ("the town of blood"). The large granite ruins found nearby indicate that the area must have been the center of powerful and sophisticated rulers. In the 16th century, Darrang came under the rule of the Koch king of Kamarupa, Nar Narayan, and when his lands were divided among his heirs, it transitioned to an independent line of kings. In the early 17th century, Raja Bali Narayan called on the Ahoms of Upper Assam for help against Mussulman invaders; after his defeat and death in 1637, the Ahoms dominated the entire region, and the Darrang rulers became minor vassals. Around 1785, they tried to regain their independence by taking advantage of the weakening Ahom kingdom, but they were defeated by a British military expedition in 1792, and in 1826, Darrang, along with the rest of Assam, came under British control.


DARTFORD, a market town in the Dartford parliamentary division of Kent, England, on the Darent, 17 m. E.S.E. of London by the South-Eastern & Chatham railway. Pop. of urban district (1891), 11,962; (1901) 18,644. The town lies low, flanked by two chalky eminences, called East and West Hills. It possesses a town hall, a grammar school (1576), and a Martyr’s Memorial Hall. The most noteworthy building, however, is the parish church, restored in 1863, which contains a curious old fresco and several interesting brasses, and has a Norman tower. The prosperity of the town depends on the important works in its vicinity, including powder works, paper mills, and engineering, iron, chemical and cement works. One of the first attempts at the manufacture of paper in England was made here by Sir John Spielman (d. 1607), jeweller to Queen Elizabeth. Dartford was the scene, in 1235, of the marriage, celebrated by proxy, between Isabella, sister of Henry III., and the Emperor Frederick II.; and in 1331 a famous tournament was held in the place by Edward III. The same monarch established an Augustinian nunnery on West Hill in 1355, of which, however, few remains exist. After the Dissolution it was used as a private residence by Henry VIII., Anne of Cleves and Elizabeth. The chantry of St Edmund the Martyr which stood on the opposite side of the town was a part of Edward III.’s endowment to the priory, and became so famous as a place of pilgrimage, especially for those on their way to Canterbury, that the part of Watling Street which crossed there towards London was sometimes called “St Edmund’s Way.” It was here also that Wat Tyler’s insurrection began in 1377, and the house in which he resided is shown. On Dartford Heath is a lunatic asylum of the London County Council, and, at Long Reach, the infectious diseases hospital of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. Stone church, 2 m. E. of Dartford, mainly late Early English (1251-1274), and carefully restored by G. E. Street in 1860, is remarkable; the richness of the work within increases from west to east, culminating in a choir arcade decorated with work among the finest of its period extant; the period is that of the choir of Westminster Abbey, and from a comparison of building materials, choir arcades and sculpture of foliage, a common architect has been suggested. Greenhithe, on the banks of the Thames, has large chalk quarries in its neighbourhood, from which lime and cement are manufactured.

DARTFORD, is a market town in the Dartford parliamentary division of Kent, England, located on the Darent River, 17 miles east-southeast of London by the South-Eastern & Chatham railway. The population of the urban district was 11,962 in 1891 and 18,644 in 1901. The town is situated low, flanked by two chalk hills, known as East and West Hills. It features a town hall, a grammar school (established in 1576), and a Martyr’s Memorial Hall. However, the most notable building is the parish church, which was restored in 1863 and contains an interesting old fresco and several notable brasses, along with a Norman tower. The town's prosperity relies on the significant industries nearby, including powder works, paper mills, and engineering, iron, chemical, and cement works. One of the earliest attempts at paper manufacturing in England took place here by Sir John Spielman (d. 1607), who was a jeweler to Queen Elizabeth. Dartford was also the site of the marriage in 1235, celebrated by proxy, between Isabella, sister of Henry III, and Emperor Frederick II. In 1331, a famous tournament was held here by Edward III. The same king established an Augustinian nunnery on West Hill in 1355, although only a few remnants remain today. After the Dissolution, it served as a private residence for Henry VIII, Anne of Cleves, and Elizabeth. The chantry of St. Edmund the Martyr, located on the opposite side of the town, was part of Edward III’s endowment to the priory and became a popular pilgrimage site, especially for those traveling to Canterbury. As a result, the section of Watling Street that crossed there toward London was sometimes referred to as “St Edmund’s Way.” This is also where Wat Tyler’s rebellion began in 1377, and the house where he lived is noted. Dartford Heath is home to a lunatic asylum operated by the London County Council and at Long Reach, there is a hospital for infectious diseases run by the Metropolitan Asylums Board. The church in Stone, 2 miles east of Dartford, primarily dates from the late Early English period (1251-1274) and was carefully restored by G. E. Street in 1860. Its interior is remarkable; the richness of the work increases from west to east, culminating in a choir arcade adorned with some of the finest craftsmanship of its time, similar to the choir of Westminster Abbey. Based on the building materials, choir arcades, and foliage sculptures, a common architect has been suggested. Greenhithe, located on the banks of the Thames, has large chalk quarries nearby, where lime and cement are produced.


DARTMOOR, a high plateau in the south-west of Devonshire, England. Its length is about 23 m. from N. to S. and its extreme breadth 20 m., the mean altitude being about 1500 ft. The area exceeding 1000 ft. in elevation is about 200 sq. m. It is the highest and easternmost in a broken chain of granitic elevations which extends through Cornwall to the Scilly Isles. The higher parts are open, bleak and wild, strongly contrasting with the more gentle scenery of the well-wooded lowlands surrounding it. Sloping heights rise from the main tableland in all directions, crested with broken masses of granite, locally named tors, and often singularly fantastic in outline. The highest of these are Yes Tor and High Willhays in the north-west, reaching altitudes of 2028 and 2039 ft. Large parts of the moor, especially in the centre, are covered with morasses; and head-waters of all the principal streams of Devonshire (q.v.) are found here. Two main roads cross the moor, one between Exeter and Plymouth, and the other between Ashburton and Tavistock, intersecting at Two Bridges. Both avoid the higher part of the moor, which, for the rest, is traversed only in part by a few rough tracks. The central part of Dartmoor was a royal forest from a date unknown, but apparently anterior to the Conquest. Its woods were formerly more extensive than now, but a few small tracts in which dwarf oaks are characteristic remain in the lower parts. Previous to 1337, the forest had been granted to Richard, earl of Cornwall, by Henry III., and from that time onward it has belonged to the duchy of Cornwall. The districts immediately surrounding the moor are called the Venville or Fenfield districts. The origin of this name is not clear. The holders of land by Venville tenure under the duchy have rights of pasture, fishing, &c. in the forest, and their main duty is to “drive” the moor at certain times in order to ascertain what head of cattle are pastured thereon, and to prevent trespassing. The antiquarian remains of Dartmoor are considered among those of Devonshire.

Dartmoor, is a high plateau in the southwest of Devon, England. It stretches about 23 miles from north to south and has a maximum width of 20 miles, with an average elevation of around 1500 feet. The area above 1000 feet elevation covers approximately 200 square miles. It's the highest and easternmost part of a jagged line of granite hills that runs through Cornwall to the Scilly Isles. The higher areas are open, exposed, and rugged, creating a striking contrast with the gentler landscapes of the lush lowlands surrounding it. Slopes rise from the main plateau in all directions, topped with broken granite formations, known locally as tors, which are often uniquely shaped. The tallest of these are Yes Tor and High Willhays in the northwest, reaching heights of 2028 and 2039 feet. Large sections of the moor, especially in the center, are marshy, and it is the source of all the major rivers in Devon. Two main roads cross the moor: one between Exeter and Plymouth, and the other between Ashburton and Tavistock, meeting at Two Bridges. Both roads avoid the higher areas of the moor, which is mostly accessed only by a few rough trails. The central part of Dartmoor has been a royal forest since an unknown date, likely before the Conquest. Its woodlands were once more extensive than they are today, with only a few small areas of dwarf oaks remaining in the lower regions. Before 1337, the forest had been granted to Richard, Earl of Cornwall, by Henry III, and since then, it has belonged to the Duchy of Cornwall. The areas immediately around the moor are known as the Venville or Fenfield districts. The origin of this name is unclear. Landholders under Venville tenure from the duchy have rights to graze their livestock, fish, etc., in the forest, and their main responsibility is to “drive” the moor at certain times to check the number of cattle grazing there and to prevent trespassing. The historic remains of Dartmoor are regarded as some of the most significant in Devon.

Dartmoor convict prison, near Princetown, was adapted to its present purpose in 1850; but the original buildings were erected 838 in 1809 for the accommodation of French prisoners. A tract of moorland adjacent to the prison has been brought under cultivation by the inmates.

Dartmoor Prison, located near Princetown, was repurposed for its current use in 1850, but the original buildings were built in 1809 to house French prisoners. An area of moorland next to the prison has been cultivated by the inmates.

See S. Rowe, Perambulation of the ... forest of Dartmoor (Plymouth, 1848); J. L. W. Page, Exploration of Dartmoor (London, 1889); S. Baring-Gould, Book of Dartmoor (London, 1900).

See S. Rowe, Perambulation of the ... forest of Dartmoor (Plymouth, 1848); J. L. W. Page, Exploration of Dartmoor (London, 1889); S. Baring-Gould, Book of Dartmoor (London, 1900).


DARTMOUTH, a town in Halifax county, Nova Scotia, Canada, on the north-eastern side of Halifax harbour, connected by a steam ferry with Halifax, of which it is practically a suburb. Pop. (1901) 4806. It contains a large sugar refinery, foundries, machine shops, saw mills, skate, rope, nail, soap and sash factories.

DARTMOUTH, a town in Halifax County, Nova Scotia, Canada, located on the northeastern side of Halifax Harbour, is linked to Halifax by a steam ferry and is essentially a suburb of the city. Population (1901) 4,806. It has a large sugar refinery, foundries, machine shops, sawmills, and factories for skateboards, rope, nails, soap, and window sashes.


DARTMOUTH, a seaport, market town, and municipal borough in the Torquay parliamentary division of Devonshire, England, 27 m. E. of Plymouth. Pop. (1901) 6579. It is beautifully situated on the west bank and near the mouth of the river Dart, which here forms an almost land-locked estuary. The town is connected by a steam ferry with Kingswear on the opposite bank, which is served by a branch of the Great Western railway. The houses of Dartmouth, many of which are ancient, rise in tiers from the shore, beneath a range of steep hills. An embankment planted with trees fronts the river. The cruciform church of St Saviour is of the 14th and 15th centuries, and contains a graceful rood-screen of the 16th century, an ancient stone pulpit and interesting monuments. Dartmouth Castle, in part of Tudor date, commands the river a little below the town. Portions of the cottage of Thomas Newcomen, one of the inventors of the steam-engine, are preserved. Dartmouth is a favourite yachting centre, and shipbuilding, brewing, engineering and paint-making are carried on. Coal is imported, and resold to ships calling at the harbour. The borough is under a mayor, four aldermen and twelve councillors. Area, 1924 acres.

DARTMOUTH, is a seaport, market town, and municipal borough in the Torquay parliamentary division of Devon, England, located 27 miles east of Plymouth. Population (1901) was 6,579. It’s beautifully located on the west bank, near the mouth of the River Dart, which forms an almost land-locked estuary here. The town is connected by a steam ferry to Kingswear on the opposite bank, which has a branch line of the Great Western railway. The houses of Dartmouth, many of which are historic, rise in tiers from the shore, beneath a range of steep hills. An embankment lined with trees runs along the river. The cross-shaped church of St. Saviour dates back to the 14th and 15th centuries and features a lovely rood-screen from the 16th century, an old stone pulpit, and notable monuments. Dartmouth Castle, partly from the Tudor period, overlooks the river just below the town. Remnants of the cottage of Thomas Newcomen, one of the inventors of the steam engine, are preserved. Dartmouth is a popular yachting hub, and industries like shipbuilding, brewing, engineering, and paint-making are present. Coal is imported and resold to ships that dock at the harbor. The borough is governed by a mayor, four aldermen, and twelve councilors. Area: 1,924 acres.

History.—Probably owing its origin to Saxon invaders, Dartmouth (Darentamuthan, Dertemue) was a seaport of importance when Earl Beorn was buried in its church in 1049. From its sheltered harbour William II. embarked for the relief of Mans, and the crusading squadron set sail in 1190, while John landed here in 1214. The borough, first claimed as such in the reign of Henry I., was in existence by the middle of the 13th century, since a deed of Gilbert Fitz-Stephen, lord of the manor, mentions the services due from “his burgesses of Dertemue,” and a borough seal of 1280 is extant. The king in 1224 required the bailiffs and good men of Dartmouth to keep all ships in readiness for his service, and in 1302 they were to furnish two ships for the Scottish expedition, an obligation maintained throughout the century. The men of the vill were made quit of toll in 1337, and in 1342 the town was incorporated by a charter frequently confirmed by later sovereigns. Edward III. in 1372 granted that the burgesses should be sued only before the mayor and bailiffs, and Richard II. in 1393 granted extended jurisdiction and a coroner; further charters were obtained in 1604 and 1684. A French attack on the town was repulsed in 1404, and in 1485 the burgesses received a royal grant of £40 for walling the town and stretching a chain across the river mouth. Dartmouth fitted out two ships against the Armada, and was captured by both the royalists and parliamentarians in the Civil War. It returned two representatives to parliament in 1298, and from 1350 to 1832. In the latter year the representation was reduced to one, and was merged in that of the county in 1868. Manorial markets were granted for Dartmouth in 1231 and 1301. These were important since as early as 1225 the fleet resorted there for provisions. During the 14th and 15th centuries there was a regular trade with Bordeaux and Brittany, and complaints of piracies by Dartmouth men were frequent.

History.—Probably due to Saxon invaders, Dartmouth (Darentamuthan, Dertemue) was an important seaport when Earl Beorn was buried in its church in 1049. From its sheltered harbor, William II embarked for the relief of Mans, and the crusading squadron set sail in 1190, while John landed here in 1214. The borough, first claimed as such during the reign of Henry I, was established by the middle of the 13th century, as a deed from Gilbert Fitz-Stephen, lord of the manor, mentions the duties owed by “his burgesses of Dertemue,” and a borough seal from 1280 still exists. In 1224, the king required the bailiffs and good men of Dartmouth to keep all ships ready for his service, and in 1302, they were to provide two ships for the Scottish campaign, an obligation upheld throughout the century. The residents were exempt from tolls in 1337, and in 1342, the town was incorporated by a charter that was often reaffirmed by later monarchs. Edward III. in 1372 stipulated that the burgesses should only be sued before the mayor and bailiffs, while Richard II. in 1393 granted extended jurisdiction and a coroner; additional charters were acquired in 1604 and 1684. A French attack on the town was repelled in 1404, and in 1485 the burgesses received a royal grant of £40 for reinforcing the town walls and stretching a chain across the river mouth. Dartmouth outfitted two ships against the Armada and was captured by both royalists and parliamentarians during the Civil War. It sent two representatives to parliament in 1298 and from 1350 to 1832. In the latter year, the representation was cut down to one, and it was integrated into the county representation in 1868. Manorial markets were granted for Dartmouth in 1231 and 1301. These were significant since as early as 1225, the fleet came there for supplies. Throughout the 14th and 15th centuries, there was regular trade with Bordeaux and Brittany, and there were frequent complaints of piracy committed by Dartmouth men.


DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, an American institution of higher education, in Hanover, New Hampshire. It is Congregational in its affiliations, but is actually non-sectarian. The college is open only to men except during the summer session, when women also are admitted. Dartmouth embraces, in addition to the original college, incorporated in 1769, a medical school, dating from the establishment of a professorship of medicine in the college in 1798; the Thayer school of civil engineering, established in 1867 by the bequest of Gen. Sylvanus Thayer; and the Amos Tuck school of administration and finance, established in 1900 by Edward Tuck—a remarkable feature, as it was the first, and, until the establishment at Harvard of a similar graduate school, the only commercial school in the country whose work is largely post-graduate. The Chandler school of science and the arts was founded by Abiel Chandler in 1851, in connexion with Dartmouth, and was incorporated into the collegiate department in 1893 as the Chandler scientific course in the college. From 1866 to 1893 the New Hampshire college of agriculture and the mechanic arts, now at Durham, was connected with Dartmouth. The medical school offers a four years’ course, and each of the other two professional schools a two years’ course, the first year of which may, under certain conditions, be counted as the senior year of the undergraduate department. The college has a beautiful campus or “yard”; a library of more than 100,000 volumes, housed in Wilson Hall (1885); instruction halls, residence halls—Thornton and Wentworth (1828), Hallgarten (1874), Richardson (1897), and Fayerweather (1900); a gymnasium (Bissell Hall, built in 1867); an athletic field, known as Alumni Oval; Bartlett Hall (1890-1891), the house of the College Young Men’s Christian Association; Rollins Chapel (1885); College Hall (1901), a social headquarters; an astronomical and meteorological observatory (Shattuck Observatory, 1854); the Mary Hitchcock hospital (1893), associated with the medical college; museums (especially the Butterfield Museum); Culver Hall (1871), the chemical laboratory; and Wilder Hall (1899), the physical laboratory. The college in 1908 had 100 officers of administration and instruction and 1219 students. It is maintained chiefly by the proceeds of a productive endowment fund amounting to $2,700,000 and by tuition fees ($125 a year for each student). The government is entrusted to a board of twelve trustees, five of whom are elected upon the nomination of the alumni.

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, is an American higher education institution located in Hanover, New Hampshire. It has Congregational ties, but it’s actually open to everyone, regardless of religion. The college primarily admits men, except during the summer session when women are also allowed. Dartmouth includes the original college, established in 1769, as well as a medical school, which began with a professorship in medicine in 1798; the Thayer School of Civil Engineering, founded in 1867 through a bequest from Gen. Sylvanus Thayer; and the Amos Tuck School of Administration and Finance, established in 1900 by Edward Tuck. This is noteworthy as it was the first, and until Harvard created a similar graduate school, the only commercial school in the country mainly offering post-graduate work. The Chandler School of Science and the Arts was founded by Abiel Chandler in 1851 in connection with Dartmouth, and became part of the college’s curriculum in 1893 as the Chandler Scientific Course. From 1866 to 1893, the New Hampshire College of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts, now in Durham, was affiliated with Dartmouth. The medical school offers a four-year program, while the other two professional schools offer two-year programs, with the first year potentially counting toward the undergraduate senior year under certain conditions. The college boasts a beautiful campus or “yard”; a library with over 100,000 volumes located in Wilson Hall (1885); academic buildings, residence halls—Thornton and Wentworth (1828), Hallgarten (1874), Richardson (1897), and Fayerweather (1900); a gymnasium (Bissell Hall, built in 1867); an athletic field known as Alumni Oval; Bartlett Hall (1890-1891), home to the College Young Men’s Christian Association; Rollins Chapel (1885); College Hall (1901), a social center; an astronomical and meteorological observatory (Shattuck Observatory, 1854); the Mary Hitchcock Hospital (1893), affiliated with the medical college; museums (notably the Butterfield Museum); Culver Hall (1871), the chemistry lab; and Wilder Hall (1899), the physics lab. In 1908, the college had 100 administrative and instructional officers and 1219 students. It is mainly funded by a productive endowment fund worth $2,700,000 and by tuition fees ($125 a year per student). Governance is managed by a board of twelve trustees, five of whom are elected based on alumni nominations.

Dartmouth is the outgrowth of Moor’s Indian charity school, founded by Eleazer Wheelock (1711-1779) about 1750 at Lebanon, Connecticut; this school was named in 1755 in honour of Joshua Moor, who in this year gave to it lands and buildings. In 1765 Samson Occom (c. 1723-1792), an Indian preacher and former student of the school, visited England and Scotland in its behalf and raised £10,000, whereupon plans were made for enlargement and for a change of site to Hanover. In 1769 the school was incorporated by a charter granted by George III. as Dartmouth College, being named after the earl of Dartmouth, president of the trustees of the funds raised in Great Britain. The first college building, Dartmouth Hall (closely resembling Nassau Hall at Princetown and the University Hall of Brown University), was built in 1784-1791 and is still standing, as are the typical college church, built in 1796 and enlarged in 1877 and 1889, and Moor Hall, the second building for Moor’s charity school, since 1852 called the Chandler building. During the War of Independence the support from Great Britain was mostly withdrawn. In 1815 President John Wheelock (1754-1817), who had succeeded his father in 1779, and was a Presbyterian and a Republican, was removed by the majority of the board of trustees, who were Congregationalists and Federalists, and Francis Brown was chosen in his place. Wheelock, upon his appeal to the legislature, was reinstated at the head of a new corporation, called Dartmouth University. The state courts upheld the legislature and the “University,” but in 1819 after the famous argument of Daniel Webster (q.v.) in behalf of the “College” board of trustees as against the “University” board before the United States Supreme Court, that body decided that the private trust created by the charter of 1769 was inviolable, and Dr Francis Brown and the old “College” board took possession of the institution’s property. This was one of the most important decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court.

Dartmouth originated from Moor’s Indian charity school, founded by Eleazer Wheelock (1711-1779) around 1750 in Lebanon, Connecticut. The school was named in 1755 in honor of Joshua Moor, who donated lands and buildings that year. In 1765, Samson Occom (c. 1723-1792), an Indian preacher and former student at the school, traveled to England and Scotland on its behalf and raised £10,000, leading to plans for expansion and a relocation to Hanover. In 1769, the school was incorporated by a charter granted by George III as Dartmouth College, named after the Earl of Dartmouth, who was the president of the trustees managing the funds raised in Great Britain. The first college building, Dartmouth Hall (which looks similar to Nassau Hall at Princeton and the University Hall of Brown University), was constructed between 1784 and 1791 and still stands today, along with the typical college church, built in 1796 and expanded in 1877 and 1889, and Moor Hall, the second building for Moor’s charity school, renamed the Chandler building in 1852. During the War of Independence, support from Great Britain was largely withdrawn. In 1815, President John Wheelock (1754-1817), who succeeded his father in 1779 and was a Presbyterian and a Republican, was removed by a majority of the board of trustees, who were Congregationalists and Federalists. Francis Brown was selected to replace him. Wheelock appealed to the legislature and was reinstated at the head of a new corporation called Dartmouth University. The state courts supported the legislature and the “University,” but in 1819, after the famous argument by Daniel Webster in favor of the “College” board of trustees against the “University” board before the United States Supreme Court, the court decided that the private trust established by the 1769 charter was inviolable, resulting in Dr. Francis Brown and the old “College” board regaining control of the institution’s property. This was one of the most significant decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court.

See Frederick Chase, A History of Dartmouth College and the Town of Hanover (Cambridge, 1891). For the Dartmouth College Case see Shirley, The Dartmouth College Causes (St Louis, Missouri, 1879); Kent, Commentaries on American Law (vol. i. Boston, 1884); and Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (vol. ii., Boston, 1891).

See Frederick Chase, A History of Dartmouth College and the Town of Hanover (Cambridge, 1891). For the Dartmouth College Case see Shirley, The Dartmouth College Causes (St Louis, Missouri, 1879); Kent, Commentaries on American Law (vol. i. Boston, 1884); and Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (vol. ii., Boston, 1891).

839

839


DARTMOUTH, EARL OF, an English title borne by the family of Legge from 1710 to the present day.

DARTMOUTH, EARL OF, an English title held by the Legge family since 1710 to the present day.

William Legge (c. 1609-1670), the eldest son of Edward Legge (d. 1616), vice-president of Munster, gained some military experience on the continent of Europe and then returning to England assisted Charles I. in his war against the Scots in 1638. He was also very useful to the king during the months which preceded the outbreak of the Civil War, although his attempt to seize Hull in January 1642 failed. During the war Legge distinguished himself at Chalgrove and at the first battle of Newbury, and in 1645 he became governor of Oxford. However, he only held this position for a few months, as he shared the disgrace of Prince Rupert, to whom he was very devoted; but he was largely instrumental in putting an end to the quarrel between the king and the prince. Legge helped Charles to escape from Hampton Court in 1647, and after attending upon him he was arrested in May 1648. He was soon released, but was again captured in the following year while proceeding to Ireland in the interests of Charles II. Regaining his freedom in 1653, he spent some years abroad, but in 1659 he was once more in England inciting the royalists to rise. Legge enjoyed the favour of Charles II., who offered to make him an earl. The old royalist died on the 13th of October 1670.

Will Legge (c. 1609-1670), the oldest son of Edward Legge (d. 1616), vice-president of Munster, gained some military experience in Europe before returning to England to support Charles I in his war against the Scots in 1638. He was also very helpful to the king in the months leading up to the Civil War, although his attempt to take Hull in January 1642 was unsuccessful. During the war, Legge made a name for himself at Chalgrove and at the first battle of Newbury, and in 1645 he became governor of Oxford. However, he only held this position for a few months, as he shared in the disgrace of Prince Rupert, to whom he was very loyal; nonetheless, he played a big part in resolving the conflict between the king and the prince. Legge assisted Charles in escaping from Hampton Court in 1647, and after serving him, he was arrested in May 1648. He was quickly released but was captured again the following year while heading to Ireland on behalf of Charles II. After regaining his freedom in 1653, he spent several years abroad, but in 1659 he returned to England to encourage the royalists to revolt. Legge was favored by Charles II, who offered to make him an earl. The veteran royalist died on October 13, 1670.

Legge’s eldest son, George, Baron Dartmouth (1647-1691), served as a volunteer in the navy during the Dutch war of 1665-1667, and quickly won his way to high rank. He was also a member of the household of the duke of York, afterwards James II.; was governor of Portsmouth and master-general of the army; in 1678 he commanded as colonel the troop at Nieuport, and in 1682 he was created Baron Dartmouth. In 1683 as “admiral of a fleet” he sailed to Tangiers, dismantled the fortifications and brought back the English troops, a duty which he discharged very satisfactorily. Under James II. Dartmouth was master of the horse and governor of the Tower of London; and in 1688, when William of Orange was expected, James II. made him commander-in-chief of his fleet. Although himself loyal to James, the same cannot be said of many of his officers, and an engagement with the Dutch fleet was purposely avoided. Dartmouth, however, refused to assist in getting James Edward, prince of Wales, out of the country, and even reproved the king for attempting this proceeding. He then left the fleet and took the oath of allegiance to William and Mary, but in July 1691 he was arrested for treason, and was charged with offering to hand over Portsmouth to France and to command a French fleet. Macaulay believed that this accusation was true, but there are those who hold that Dartmouth spoke the truth when he protested his innocence. Further proceedings against him were prevented by his death, which took place in the Tower of London on the 25th of October 1691.

Legge’s eldest son, George, Lord Dartmouth (1647-1691), volunteered in the navy during the Dutch war from 1665 to 1667 and quickly rose to a high rank. He was also part of the household of the Duke of York, who later became James II; served as the governor of Portsmouth; and was master-general of the army. In 1678, he commanded the troop at Nieuport as a colonel, and in 1682 he was made Baron Dartmouth. In 1683, as “Admiral of a Fleet,” he sailed to Tangiers, took down the fortifications, and brought the English troops home, a task he completed very well. Under James II, Dartmouth was master of the horse and governor of the Tower of London; and in 1688, when William of Orange was expected, James II appointed him commander-in-chief of his fleet. Although he was personally loyal to James, many of his officers were not, and they deliberately avoided engaging with the Dutch fleet. Dartmouth, however, refused to help get James Edward, Prince of Wales, out of the country, and even criticized the king for trying to do so. He then left the fleet and took an oath of allegiance to William and Mary, but in July 1691, he was arrested for treason and accused of planning to hand over Portsmouth to France and command a French fleet. Macaulay believed that this accusation was true, but others argued that Dartmouth was sincere when he declared his innocence. Further actions against him were halted by his death, which occurred in the Tower of London on October 25, 1691.

Lord Dartmouth’s only son, William, 1st Earl of Dartmouth (1672-1750), succeeded to his father’s barony in 1691. In 1702 he was appointed a member of the board of trade and foreign plantations, and eight years later he became secretary of state for the southern department and joint keeper of the signet for Scotland. In 1711 he was created viscount Lewisham and earl of Dartmouth; in 1713 he exchanged his offices for that of keeper of the privy seal, which he held until the end of 1714. After a long period of retirement from public life he died on the 15th of December 1750. Dartmouth’s eldest son George, viscount Lewisham (c. 1703-1732), predeceased his father. Other sons were: Heneage Legge (1704-1759), judge of the court of exchequer; Henry Legge (q.v.), afterwards Bilson-Legge; and Edward Legge (1710-1747), who served for some time in the navy and died on the 19th of September 1747.

Lord Dartmouth’s only son, William, 1st Earl of Dartmouth (1672-1750), inherited his father’s title in 1691. In 1702, he was appointed to the board of trade and foreign plantations, and eight years later, he became the secretary of state for the southern department and co-keeper of the signet for Scotland. In 1711, he was made viscount Lewisham and earl of Dartmouth; in 1713, he swapped his positions for that of keeper of the privy seal, a role he held until the end of 1714. After taking a long break from public life, he passed away on December 15, 1750. Dartmouth’s oldest son George, viscount Lewisham (c. 1703-1732), died before him. His other sons included Heneage Legge (1704-1759), judge of the court of exchequer; Henry Legge (q.v.), who later became Bilson-Legge; and Edward Legge (1710-1747), who served in the navy for some time and died on September 19, 1747.

William, 2nd Earl of Dartmouth (1731-1801), was a son of George, viscount Lewisham, and a grandson of the 1st earl, whom he succeeded in 1750. For a few months in 1765 and 1766 he was president of the board of trade and foreign plantations; in 1772 he returned to the same office holding also that of secretary for the colonies; and in 1775 he became lord privy seal. With regard to the American colonies Dartmouth advised them in 1777 to accept the conciliatory proposals put forward by Lord North, but in 1776 he opposed similar proposals and advocated the employment of force. In March 1782 he resigned his office as lord privy seal and in 1783 he was lord steward of the household; he died on the 15th of July 1801. Dartmouth was a friend of Selina, countess of Huntingdon, and his piety and his intimacy with the early Methodists won for him the epithet of the Psalm-singer. Dartmouth College was named after him, and among his papers preserved at Patshull House, Wolverhampton, are many letters from America relating to the struggle for independence. His sixth son, Sir Arthur Kaye Legge (d. 1835), was an admiral of the blue, and his seventh son, Edward Legge (d. 1827), was bishop of Oxford.

William, 2nd Earl of Dartmouth (1731-1801), was the son of George, viscount Lewisham, and the grandson of the 1st earl, whom he succeeded in 1750. For a few months in 1765 and 1766, he served as president of the board of trade and foreign plantations. In 1772, he returned to the same position while also taking on the role of secretary for the colonies; and in 1775, he became lord privy seal. Regarding the American colonies, Dartmouth advised them in 1777 to accept the conciliatory proposals made by Lord North, but in 1776, he opposed similar proposals and supported the use of force. In March 1782, he resigned from his position as lord privy seal and in 1783, he served as lord steward of the household; he died on July 15, 1801. Dartmouth was a friend of Selina, countess of Huntingdon, and his devout nature and connection with the early Methodists earned him the nickname of the Psalm-singer. Dartmouth College was named after him, and among his papers preserved at Patshull House, Wolverhampton, are many letters from America related to the struggle for independence. His sixth son, Sir Arthur Kaye Legge (d. 1835), was an admiral of the blue, and his seventh son, Edward Legge (d. 1827), was bishop of Oxford.

George, 3rd Earl of Dartmouth (1755-1810), the eldest son of the 2nd earl, was lord warden of the stannaries and president of the board of control; later he was lord steward and then lord chamberlain of the royal household. He died on the 1st of November 1810, when his eldest son, William (1784-1853), became 4th earl. William’s son, William Walter (1823-1891), became 5th earl in 1853 and was succeeded in 1891 by his son William Heneage Legge (b. 1851) as 6th earl of Dartmouth. As Lord Lewisham this nobleman was a member of parliament from 1878 to 1891, and was vice-chamberlain of the household in 1885-1886, and again from 1886 to 1892.

George, 3rd Earl of Dartmouth (1755-1810), the oldest son of the 2nd earl, served as lord warden of the stannaries and president of the board of control; later he became lord steward and then lord chamberlain of the royal household. He passed away on November 1, 1810, at which point his eldest son, William (1784-1853), took over as the 4th earl. William’s son, William Walter (1823-1891), became the 5th earl in 1853 and was succeeded in 1891 by his son William Heneage Legge (b. 1851) as the 6th earl of Dartmouth. As Lord Lewisham, this nobleman was a member of parliament from 1878 to 1891, served as vice-chamberlain of the household from 1885 to 1886, and then again from 1886 to 1892.


DARU, PIERRE ANTOINE NOËL BRUNO, Count (1767-1829), French soldier and statesman, was born at Montpellier on the 12th of January 1767. He was educated at the military school of Tournon, conducted by the Oratorians, and entered the artillery at an early age. His fondness for literature, however, soon made itself felt, and he published several slight pieces, until the outbreak of the French Revolution called him to a sterner occupation. In 1793 he became commissary to the army, protecting the coasts of Brittany from projected descents of the British, or of French royalists. Thrown into prison on a frivolous charge of friendliness to the royalists and England, he was released after the fall of Robespierre in the summer of 1794, and rose in the service until, in 1799, he became chief commissary to the French army serving under Masséna in the north of Switzerland. In that position he won repute for his organizing capacity, great power of work and unswerving probity—the last of which qualities was none too common in the French armies at that time. These exacting tasks did not absorb all his energies. He found time, even during the campaign, to translate part of Horace and to compose two poems, the Poème des Alpes and the Chant de guerre. The latter celebrated in indignant strains the murder of the French envoys to the congress of Rastadt.

DARU, PIERRE ANTOINE NOËL BRUNO, Count (1767-1829), French soldier and statesman, was born in Montpellier on January 12, 1767. He studied at the military school of Tournon, run by the Oratorians, and joined the artillery at a young age. However, his love for literature quickly emerged, and he published several minor works until the French Revolution called him to a more serious role. In 1793, he became a commissary to the army, defending the coasts of Brittany from potential British invasions or attacks by French royalists. He was thrown into prison on a petty charge of being friendly towards the royalists and England, but he was released after Robespierre's fall in the summer of 1794. He advanced through the ranks and, by 1799, became the chief commissary to the French army serving under Masséna in northern Switzerland. In this role, he gained a reputation for his organizing skills, remarkable work ethic, and unwavering integrity—qualities that were quite rare in the French armies at that time. These demanding responsibilities didn’t consume all of his energy. He managed to find time, even amid the campaign, to translate parts of Horace and to write two poems, the Poème des Alpes and the Chant de guerre. The latter angrily condemned the murder of the French envoys at the congress of Rastadt.

The accession of Napoleon Bonaparte to power in November 1799 led to the employment of Daru as chief commissary to the Army of Reserve intended for North Italy, and commanded nominally by Berthier, but really by the First Consul. Conjointly with Berthier and Dejean, he signed the armistice with the Austrians which closed the campaign in North Italy in June 1800. Daru now returned, for a time, mainly to civil life, and entered the tribunate, where he ably maintained the principles of democratic liberty. On the renewal of war with England, in May 1803, he again resumed his duties as chief commissary for the army on the northern coasts. It was afterwards asserted that, on Napoleon’s resolve to turn the army of England against Austria, Daru had set down at the emperor’s dictation all the details of the campaign which culminated at Ulm. The story is apocryphal; but Napoleon’s confidence in him was evinced by his being appointed to similar duties in the Grand Army, which in the autumn of 1805 overthrew the armies of Austria and Russia. After the battle of Austerlitz, he took part in the drafting of the treaty of Presburg. At this time, too, he became intendant-general of the military household of Napoleon. In the campaigns of 1806-1807 he served, in his usual capacity, in the army which overthrew the forces of Russia and Prussia; and he had a share in drawing up the treaty of Tilsit (7th of July 1807). After this he supervised the administrative and financial duties in connexion with the French army which occupied the principal fortresses of Prussia, and was one of the chief agents through whom Napoleon pressed hard on that land. At the congress of Erfurt, Daru had 840 the privilege of being present at the interview between Goethe and Napoleon, and interposed tactful references to the works of the great poet. Daru fulfilled his usual duties in the campaign of 1809 against Austria. Afterwards, when the subject of the divorce of Josephine and the choice of a Russian or of an Austrian princess came to be discussed, Daru, on being consulted by Napoleon, is said boldly to have counselled his marriage with a French lady; and Napoleon, who admired his frankness and honesty, took the reply in good part.

The rise of Napoleon Bonaparte to power in November 1799 led to Daru being appointed as chief commissary for the Army of Reserve aimed at North Italy, which was nominally commanded by Berthier but actually led by the First Consul himself. Along with Berthier and Dejean, he signed the armistice with the Austrians that ended the campaign in North Italy in June 1800. Daru then returned to civilian life for a while and joined the tribunate, where he strongly defended the principles of democratic freedom. When war with England resumed in May 1803, he took up his role again as chief commissary for the army on the northern coasts. It was later claimed that when Napoleon decided to direct the army of England against Austria, Daru meticulously recorded all the details of the campaign that led to Ulm at the emperor's direction. That story isn't true, but Napoleon's trust in him was clear when he was assigned similar responsibilities in the Grand Army, which defeated the armies of Austria and Russia in the autumn of 1805. After the battle of Austerlitz, he participated in drafting the treaty of Presburg. At this time, he also became the intendant-general of Napoleon's military household. During the campaigns of 1806-1807, he served in his usual role in the army that defeated the forces of Russia and Prussia; he also contributed to writing the treaty of Tilsit on July 7, 1807. After that, he managed the administrative and financial responsibilities related to the French army that occupied the main fortresses in Prussia and was one of the key figures through whom Napoleon applied pressure on that country. At the congress of Erfurt, Daru had the opportunity to attend the meeting between Goethe and Napoleon, during which he tactfully referenced the works of the famous poet. He performed his usual duties in the campaign of 1809 against Austria. Later, when the issue of Josephine's divorce and the selection of a Russian or Austrian princess was discussed, Daru, when consulted by Napoleon, is said to have boldly advised marrying a French woman; Napoleon, who appreciated his honesty and directness, received the advice well.

In 1811 he became secretary of state in succession to Maret, duc de Bassano, and showed his usual ability in the administration of the vast and complex affairs of the French empire, including the arrangements connected with the civil list and the imperial domains. But neither his devotion to civic duty nor to the administration of the affairs of the Grand Army could ward off disaster. Late in the year 1813 he took up the portfolio of military affairs. After the first abdication of Napoleon in 1814, Daru retired into private life, but aided Napoleon during the Hundred Days. After the second Restoration he became a member of the Chamber of Peers, in which he ably defended the cause of popular liberty against the attacks of the ultra-royalists. He died at Meulan on the 5th of September 1829.

In 1811, he became Secretary of State, succeeding Maret, duc de Bassano, and demonstrated his usual skill in managing the vast and complex affairs of the French empire, including the arrangements related to the civil list and the imperial domains. However, neither his commitment to civic duty nor his attention to the Grand Army's affairs could prevent disaster. Late in 1813, he took on the military affairs portfolio. After Napoleon's first abdication in 1814, Daru retired to private life but supported Napoleon during the Hundred Days. Following the second Restoration, he became a member of the Chamber of Peers, where he effectively defended the cause of popular liberty against the ultra-royalists’ attacks. He passed away in Meulan on September 5, 1829.

Few men of the Napoleonic empire have been more generally admired and respected than Daru. On one occasion when he expressed a fear that he lacked all the gifts of a courtier, Napoleon replied, “Courtiers! They are common enough about me; I shall never be in want of them. What I want is an enlightened, firm and vigilant administrator; and that is why I have chosen you.” At another time Napoleon said, “Daru is good on all sides; he has good judgment, a good intellect, a great power for work, and a body and mind of iron.” The only occasion on which he is known to have sunk beneath the weight of his duties was in the course of writing letters at the emperor’s dictation for the third night in succession.

Few men in the Napoleonic empire were as widely admired and respected as Daru. One time, when he expressed doubt about lacking the skills of a courtier, Napoleon replied, “Courtiers! They’re common enough around me; I’ll never be short on them. What I need is a knowledgeable, strong, and attentive administrator; that’s why I chose you.” On another occasion, Napoleon said, “Daru is well-rounded; he has good judgment, a sharp mind, an incredible work ethic, and a body and mind of steel.” The only time he is known to have been overwhelmed by his responsibilities was while writing letters at the emperor’s dictation for the third consecutive night.

Of Daru’s literary works may be mentioned his Histoire de Venise, published at Paris in 7 vols. in 1819; the Histoire de Bretagne, in 3 vols. (Paris, 1826); a poetical translation of Horace (of which Le Brun remarked: “Je ne lis point Daru, j’aime trop mon Horace”); Discours en vers sur les facultés de l’homme (Paris, 1825), and Astronomie, a didactic poem in six cantos (Paris, 1820).

Of Daru's literary works, we can mention his Histoire de Venise, published in Paris in 7 volumes in 1819; the Histoire de Bretagne, in 3 volumes (Paris, 1826); a poetic translation of Horace (which Le Brun noted: “I do not read Daru, I love my Horace too much”); Discours en vers sur les facultés de l’homme (Paris, 1825), and Astronomie, a didactic poem in six cantos (Paris, 1820).

See the “Notice” by Viennet prefixed to the fourth edition of Daru’s Histoire de la république de Venise (9 vols., 1853), and three articles by Sainte-Beuve in Causeries du lundi, vol. ix. For the many letters of Napoleon to Daru see the Correspondance de Napoléon Ier (32 vols., Paris, 1858-1870).

See the "Notice" by Viennet at the beginning of the fourth edition of Daru's Histoire de la république de Venise (9 vols., 1853), and three articles by Sainte-Beuve in Causeries du lundi, vol. ix. For the numerous letters from Napoleon to Daru, check the Correspondance de Napoléon Ier (32 vols., Paris, 1858-1870).

(J. Hl. R.)

DARWEN, a municipal borough in the Darwen parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, 20 m. N.W. from Manchester by the Lancashire & Yorkshire railway. Pop. (1891) 34,192; (1901) 38,212. It lies on the river Darwen, which traverses a densely populated manufacturing district, and is surrounded by high-lying moors. Darwen is a centre of the cotton trade and has also blast furnaces, and paper-making, paper-staining and fire-clay works. In the neighbourhood are collieries and stone quarries. The market hall is the chief public building; there are technical schools, a free library, and two public parks. Darwen was incorporated in 1788. The corporation consists of a mayor, six aldermen and eighteen councillors.

DARWEN, is a municipal borough in the Darwen parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, 20 miles northwest of Manchester by the Lancashire & Yorkshire railway. Population (1891) 34,192; (1901) 38,212. It is located on the river Darwen, which flows through a densely populated manufacturing area, and is surrounded by high moors. Darwen is a hub for the cotton trade and also has blast furnaces, along with paper-making, paper-staining, and fire-clay factories. Nearby, there are coal mines and stone quarries. The market hall is the main public building; there are also technical schools, a free library, and two public parks. Darwen was incorporated in 1788. The local government consists of a mayor, six aldermen, and eighteen councillors.


DARWIN, CHARLES ROBERT (1809-1882), English naturalist, author of the Origin of Species, was born at Shrewsbury on the 12th of February 1809. He was the younger of the two sons and the fourth child of Dr Robert Waring Darwin, son of Dr Erasmus Darwin (q.v.). His mother, a daughter of Josiah Wedgwood (1730-1795), died when Charles Darwin was eight years old. Charles Darwin’s elder brother, Erasmus Alvey (1804-1881), was interested in literature and art rather than science: on the subject of the wide difference between the brothers Charles wrote that he was “inclined to agree with Francis Galton in believing that education and environment produce only a small effect on the mind of anyone, and that most of our qualities are innate” (Life and Letters, London, 1887, p. 22). Darwin considered that his own success was chiefly due to “the love of science, unbounded patience in long reflecting over any subject, industry in observing and collecting facts, and a fair share of invention as well as of common sense” (l.c. p. 107). He also says: “I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it” (l.c. p. 103). The essential causes of his success are to be found in this latter sentence, the creative genius ever inspired by existing knowledge to build hypotheses by whose aid further knowledge could be won, the calm unbiassed mind, the transparent honesty and love of truth which enabled him to abandon or to modify his own creations when they ceased to be supported by observation. The even balance between these powers was as important as their remarkable development. The great naturalist appeared in the ripeness of time, when the world was ready for his splendid generalizations. Indeed naturalists were already everywhere considering and discussing the problem of evolution, although Alfred Russel Wallace was the only one who, independently of Darwin, saw his way clearly to the solution. It is true that hypotheses essentially the same as natural selection were suggested much earlier by W. C. Wells (Phil. Trans., 1813), and Patrick Matthew (Naval Timber and Arboriculture, 1831), but their views were lost sight of and produced no effect upon the great body of naturalists. In the preparation for Darwin Sir Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology played an important part, accustoming men’s minds to the vast changes brought about by natural processes, and leading them, by its lucid and temperate discussion of Lamarck’s and other views, to reflect upon evolution.

DARWIN, CHARLES ROBERT (1809-1882), English naturalist, author of the Origin of Species, was born in Shrewsbury on February 12, 1809. He was the younger of two sons and the fourth child of Dr. Robert Waring Darwin, the son of Dr. Erasmus Darwin (q.v.). His mother, a daughter of Josiah Wedgwood (1730-1795), passed away when Charles was eight years old. Charles’s older brother, Erasmus Alvey (1804-1881), was more into literature and art than science. About their significant differences, Charles mentioned that he “tended to agree with Francis Galton in believing that education and environment have a minor impact on the mind of anyone, and that most of our traits are inherent” (Life and Letters, London, 1887, p. 22). Darwin thought that his own success was primarily due to "a passion for science, endless patience in deeply thinking about any topic, dedication in observing and gathering facts, and a decent amount of creativity as well as common sense” (l.c. p. 107). He also stated: “I have consistently tried to keep my mind open so that I can abandon any hypothesis, no matter how cherished (and I can't help forming one on every topic), as soon as facts show it to be incorrect” (l.c. p. 103). The key reasons for his success lie in this last sentence: a creative genius always inspired by existing knowledge to develop hypotheses that could generate further insight, a calm and unbiased mind, and a transparent honesty and love of truth that allowed him to let go of or alter his own ideas when they no longer matched his observations. The balance between these abilities was just as important as their impressive development. The great naturalist emerged at the right time when the world was prepared for his remarkable theories. In fact, naturalists were already everywhere thinking about and discussing evolution, although Alfred Russel Wallace was the only one who independently found a clear path to the solution. It is true that hypotheses similar to natural selection were proposed much earlier by W. C. Wells (Phil. Trans., 1813), and Patrick Matthew (Naval Timber and Arboriculture, 1831), but their perspectives faded away and had no influence on the larger community of naturalists. In preparing for Darwin, Sir Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology played a significant role, familiarizing people with the extensive changes caused by natural processes, and leading them through its clear and moderate discussion of Lamarck’s and other theories to think about evolution.

Darwin’s early education was conducted at Shrewsbury, first for a year at a day-school, then for seven years at Shrewsbury School under Dr Samuel Butler (1774-1839). He gained but little from the narrow system which was then universal. In 1825 he went to Edinburgh to prepare for the medical profession, for which he was unfitted by nature. After two sessions his father realized this, and in 1828 sent him to Cambridge with the idea that he should become a clergyman. He matriculated at Christ’s College, and took his degree in 1831, tenth in the list of those who do not seek honours. Up to this time he had been keenly interested in sport, and in entomology, especially the collecting of beetles. Both at Edinburgh, where in 1826 he read his first scientific paper, and at Cambridge he gained the friendship of much older scientific men—Robert Edmond Grant and William Macgillivray at the former, John Stevens Henslow and Adam Sedgwick at the latter. He had two terms’ residence to keep after passing his last examination, and studied geology with Sedgwick. Returning from their geological excursion together in North Wales (August 1831), he found a letter from Henslow urging him to apply for the position of naturalist on the “Beagle,” about to start on a surveying expedition. His father at first disliked the idea, but his uncle, the second Josiah Wedgwood, pleaded with success, and Darwin started on the 27th of December 1831, the voyage lasting until the 2nd of October 1836. It is practically certain that he never left Great Britain after this latter date. After visiting the Cape de Verde and other islands of the Atlantic, the expedition surveyed on the South American coasts and adjacent islands (including the Galapagos), afterwards visiting Tahiti, New Zealand, Australia, Tasmania, Keeling Island, Maldives, Mauritius, St Helena, Ascension; and Brazil, de Verdes and Azores on the way home. His work on the geology of the countries visited, and that on coral islands, became the subject of volumes which he published after his return, as well as his Journal of a Naturalist, and his other contributions to the official narrative. The voyage must be regarded as the real preparation for his life-work. His observations on the relation between animals in islands and those of the nearest continental areas, near akin and yet not the same, and between living animals and those most recently extinct and found fossil in the same country, here again related but not the same, led him even then to reflect deeply upon the modification of species. He had also been much impressed by “the manner in which closely allied animals replace one another in proceeding southwards” in South America. On his return home Darwin worked at his 841 collections, first at Cambridge for three months and then in London. His pocket-book for 1837 contains the words: “In July opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species. Had been greatly struck from about the month of previous March [while still on the voyage and just over twenty-eight years old] on character of South American fossils, and species on Galapagos Archipelago. These facts (especially latter) origin of all my views.” From 1838 to 1841 he was secretary of the Geological Society, and saw a great deal of Sir Charles Lyell, to whom he dedicated the second edition of his Journal. On the 29th of January 1839 he married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood, the daughter of Josiah Wedgwood of Maer. They lived in London until September 1842, when they moved to Down, which was Darwin’s home for the rest of his life. His health broke down many times in London, and remained precarious during the whole of his life. The immense amount of work which he got through was only made possible by the loving care of his wife. For eight years (1846 to 1854) he was chiefly engaged upon four monographs on the recent and fossil Cirripede Crustacea (Roy. Soc., 1851 and 1854; Palaeontograph. Soc., 1851 and 1854). Towards the close of this work Darwin became very wearied of it, especially of the synonymy. For a time he hoped to start a movement which should discourage the habit of appending the name of the describer to the name of the species, a custom which he thought led to bad and superficial work. From this time he was engaged upon the numerous lines of inquiry which led to the great work of his life, the Origin of Species, published in November 1859.

Darwin’s early education took place in Shrewsbury, starting with a year at a day school and then spending seven years at Shrewsbury School under Dr. Samuel Butler (1774-1839). He learned very little from the restrictive system that was common at the time. In 1825, he went to Edinburgh to prepare for a career in medicine, but he wasn't suited for it. After two years, his father recognized this and in 1828 sent him to Cambridge with the expectation that he would become a clergyman. He enrolled at Christ’s College and earned his degree in 1831, ranking tenth among those who weren't seeking honors. Up until then, he had been very interested in sports and entomology, particularly in collecting beetles. Both at Edinburgh, where he presented his first scientific paper in 1826, and at Cambridge, he formed friendships with several older scientists—Robert Edmond Grant and William Macgillivray at Edinburgh, and John Stevens Henslow and Adam Sedgwick at Cambridge. He needed to reside for two more terms after passing his final exam and studied geology with Sedgwick. After returning from a geological excursion with Sedgwick in North Wales (August 1831), he found a letter from Henslow encouraging him to apply for the position of naturalist on the "Beagle," which was about to begin a surveying expedition. His father initially didn't like the idea, but his uncle, the second Josiah Wedgwood, successfully pleaded on his behalf, and Darwin set off on December 27, 1831, with the voyage lasting until October 2, 1836. It's almost certain that he never left Great Britain after that date. The expedition visited the Cape Verde islands and made surveys along the coasts of South America and nearby islands (including the Galapagos), and later went to Tahiti, New Zealand, Australia, Tasmania, Keeling Island, Maldives, Mauritius, St. Helena, Ascension, and Brazil, with stops at De Verdes and the Azores on the return trip. His studies on the geology of these regions and coral islands eventually became subjects of volumes he published after returning, along with his Journal of a Naturalist and other contributions to the official account. This voyage was essentially the foundation for his life's work. His observations about the relationship between island animals and those in nearby continental areas—similar yet distinct—and between living animals and recently extinct species found as fossils in the same region, led him to reflect deeply on species modification. He was also greatly struck by how closely related animals replaced each other moving southwards in South America. After getting back home, Darwin focused on his collections, initially in Cambridge for three months and then in London. His pocket diary for 1837 noted: “In July opened first notebook on Transmutation of Species. Had been greatly struck from around March [while still on the voyage and just over twenty-eight years old] by the nature of South American fossils and species from the Galapagos Archipelago. These facts (especially the latter) are the origin of all my views.” From 1838 to 1841, he served as secretary of the Geological Society and spent a lot of time with Sir Charles Lyell, to whom he dedicated the second edition of his Journal. On January 29, 1839, he married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood, the daughter of Josiah Wedgwood of Maer. They lived in London until September 1842, when they moved to Down, which became Darwin’s home for the rest of his life. His health deteriorated multiple times in London and remained fragile throughout his life. The enormous amount of work he accomplished was made possible by the loving support of his wife. For eight years (1846 to 1854), he primarily worked on four monographs about recent and fossil Cirripede Crustacea (Roy. Soc., 1851 and 1854; Palaeontograph. Soc., 1851 and 1854). Towards the end of this work, Darwin grew very tired of it, especially the synonymy. For a while, he hoped to start a movement that would discourage the practice of appending the name of the describer to the species name, believing this led to poor and shallow work. From then on, he engaged in numerous lines of inquiry that ultimately led to the significant work of his life, the Origin of Species, published in November 1859.

Soon after opening his note-book in July 1837 he began to collect facts bearing upon the formation of the breeds of domestic animals and plants, and quickly saw “that selection was the keystone of man’s success. But how selection could be applied to organisms living in a state of nature remained for some time a mystery to me.” Various ideas as to the causes of evolution occurred to him, only to be successively abandoned. He had the idea of “laws of change” which affected species and finally led to their extinction, to some extent analogous to the causes which bring about the development, maturity and finally death of an individual. He also had the conception that species must give rise to other species or else die out, just as an individual dies unrepresented if it bears no offspring. These and other ideas, of which traces exist in his Diary, arose in his mind, together with perhaps some general conception of natural selection, during the fifteen months after the opening of his note-book. In October 1838 he read Malthus on Population, and his observations having long since convinced him of the struggle for existence, it at once struck him “that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had a theory by which to work.” In June 1842 he wrote out a sketch, which two years later he expanded to an essay occupying 231 pages folio. The idea of progressive divergence as an advantage in itself, because the competition is most severe between organisms most closely related, did not occur to him until long after he had come to Down. During the growth of the Origin Sir Joseph Hooker was his most intimate friend, and on the 11th of January 1844 he wrote: “At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable” (l.c. ii. 13). In 1855 he began a correspondence with the great American botanist Asa Gray, and in 1857 explained his views in a letter which afterwards became classical. In 1856, urged by Lyell, he began the preparation of a third and far more expanded treatise, and had completed about half of it when, on the 18th of June 1858, he received a manuscript essay from A. R. Wallace, who was then at Ternate in the Moluccas. Wallace wanted Darwin’s opinion on the essay, which he asked should be forwarded to Lyell. Darwin was much startled to find in the essay a complete abstract of his own theory of natural selection. He forwarded it the same day, writing to Lyell, “your words have come true with a vengeance—that I should be forestalled.” He placed himself in the hands of Lyell and Hooker, who decided to send Wallace’s essay to the Linnean Society, together with an abstract of Darwin’s work, which they asked him to prepare, the joint essay being accompanied by a preface in the form of an explanatory letter written by them to the secretary. The title of the joint communication was “On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.” It was read on the 1st of July 1858, and appears in the Linn. Soc. Journal (Zoology) for that year. In this statement of the theory of natural selection, Darwin’s part consisted of two sections, the first being extracts from his 1844 essay, including a brief account of sexual selection, and the second an abstract of his letter to Asa Gray dated the 5th of September 1857. This latter, probably his first attempt to expound natural selection, cannot be surpassed as a clear statement of the theory. Darwin explained at the outset, what he insisted on elsewhere, that the facts of adaptation or contrivance in nature are the real difficulty to be explained by a theory of evolution, the stumbling-block of every previous suggestion. Until he could explain “the mistletoe, with its pollen carried by insects, and seed by birds—the woodpecker, with its feet and tail, beak and tongue, to climb the tree and secure insects,” he was “scientifically orthodox.” Nevertheless he was led to believe in evolution, apart from any possible motive-cause, by “general facts in the affinities, embryology, rudimentary organs, geological history, and geographical distribution of organic beings.” He then proceeds to describe the manner in which he met the difficulty of adaptation by “his notions on the means by which Nature makes her species.” The essentials of the statement are as follows:—I. Man has made his domestic breeds of animals and plants by selection, conscious or unconscious, of very slight or greater variations. II. The material for selection exists in nature, namely, slight variations of all parts of the organism. III. The “unerring power” which sifts these variations is “natural selection ... which selects exclusively for the good of each organic being.” The rate of increase is such that only a few in each generation can live: hence the never sufficiently appreciated struggle for life. “What a trifling difference must often determine which shall survive and which perish!” The remaining heads explain the complex nature of the struggle, the reasons for deficient direct evidence, the advantage of divergence, &c. In the joint essay the phrases “natural selection” and “sexual selection” were first made public by Darwin, the “struggle for existence” by Wallace. Darwin and Wallace had met only once before the departure of the latter for the East. Their rivalry in the discovery of the great principle of natural selection was the beginning of a lifelong friendship. Wallace was lying ill with intermittent fever at Ternate in February 1858 when he began to think of Malthus’s Essay on Population, read several years before: suddenly the idea of the survival of the fittest flashed upon him. In two hours he had “thought out almost the whole of the theory,” and in three evenings had finished his essay. Darwin, also inspired after reading Malthus, in October 1838, did not publish until nearly twenty years had elapsed, and then only when Wallace sent him his essay. Canon H. B. Tristram was the first to apply the new theory, explaining by its aid the colours of desert birds, &c. (Ibis, October 1859).

Soon after he opened his notebook in July 1837, he began collecting facts about the breeding of domestic animals and plants, quickly realizing that "selection was the key to human success. But how selection could be applied to organisms living in the wild remained a mystery to me for some time." He considered various ideas about the causes of evolution, only to abandon them one after the other. He thought about "laws of change" that affected species and eventually led to their extinction, somewhat similar to the processes that bring about the growth, maturity, and death of an individual. He also believed that species had to give rise to new species or else become extinct, just like an individual will perish if it has no offspring. These and other ideas, which can be found in his Diary, developed in his mind, along with perhaps some general concept of natural selection during the fifteen months after he opened his notebook. In October 1838, he read Malthus on Population, and his long-held observations on the struggle for existence immediately led him to conclude, "that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be eliminated. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had a theory to work with." In June 1842, he drafted a sketch, which he expanded two years later into an essay that filled 231 pages. The idea that progressive divergence is advantageous, because competition is fiercest among closely related organisms, didn’t occur to him until long after he settled in Down. During the development of the Origin, Sir Joseph Hooker was his closest friend, and on January 11, 1844, he wrote: “Finally, glimpses of understanding have come to me, and I am almost convinced (completely contrary to my original belief) that species are not (it’s like confessing to a crime) unchanging” (l.c. ii. 13). In 1855, he began corresponding with the prominent American botanist Asa Gray, and in 1857, he explained his views in a letter that later became well-known. In 1856, encouraged by Lyell, he started working on a third and much more expansive treatise and had completed about half when, on June 18, 1858, he received a manuscript essay from A. R. Wallace, who was then in Ternate in the Moluccas. Wallace wanted Darwin’s opinion on the essay and asked it to be sent to Lyell. Darwin was surprised to find that the essay contained a complete outline of his own theory of natural selection. He forwarded it the same day, writing to Lyell, "Your words have come back to haunt me—that I should be pre-empted." He turned to Lyell and Hooker, who decided to submit Wallace’s essay to the Linnean Society along with a summary of Darwin’s work, which they asked him to prepare. The joint submission was titled “On the Tendency of Species to Form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.” It was read on July 1, 1858, and published in the Linn. Soc. Journal (Zoology) that year. In this statement of the theory of natural selection, Darwin’s contribution consisted of two sections: the first included excerpts from his 1844 essay, which contained a brief account of sexual selection, and the second was an abstract of his letter to Asa Gray dated September 5, 1857. This latter was probably his first clear attempt to explain natural selection and is unmatched as a clear statement of the theory. Darwin began by explaining, as he insisted elsewhere, that the facts of adaptation or design in nature present the real challenge for any theory of evolution and are the primary obstacle to every previous suggestion. Until he could explain “the mistletoe, with its pollen carried by insects and its seeds by birds—the woodpecker, with its specially adapted feet, tail, beak, and tongue for climbing trees and acquiring insects,” he remained “scientifically orthodox.” Nonetheless, he came to believe in evolution, independent of any potential motive-cause, through “general facts regarding the affinities, embryology, rudimentary organs, geological history, and geographical distribution of living organisms.” He then described how he confronted the difficulty of adaptation through “his ideas regarding how Nature creates her species.” The essential points are as follows: I. Humans have created domestic breeds of animals and plants through selection, whether conscious or unconscious, of very slight or more significant variations. II. The material for selection is present in nature, specifically slight variations in all parts of organisms. III. The "unerring power" that filters these variations is “natural selection ... which selects solely for the benefit of each organism.” The rate of reproduction is such that only a few in each generation can survive: hence the often undervalued struggle for life. “What a trivial difference often determines who survives and who does not!” The remaining points discuss the complicated nature of the struggle, the reasons for the lack of direct evidence, the benefits of divergence, etc. In the joint essay, the phrases “natural selection” and “sexual selection” were first publicly introduced by Darwin, while “struggle for existence” was introduced by Wallace. Darwin and Wallace had only met once before Wallace left for the East. Their competition in discovering the fundamental principle of natural selection marked the start of a lifelong friendship. Wallace was seriously ill with intermittent fever in Ternate in February 1858 when he recalled Malthus’s Essay on Population, which he had read years earlier: suddenly, the idea of the survival of the fittest came to him. In just two hours, he had "thought out nearly the entire theory," and in three evenings, he completed his essay. Darwin, also motivated after reading Malthus in October 1838, did not publish for nearly twenty years, and then only after he received Wallace’s essay. Canon H. B. Tristram was the first to apply the new theory to explain the colors of desert birds, etc. (Ibis, October 1859).

Acting under the advice of Lyell and Hooker, Darwin then began to prepare what was to become the great work of his life. It appeared on the 24th of November 1859, with the full title, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The whole edition of 1250 copies was exhausted on the day of issue. The first four chapters explain the operation of artificial selection by man and of natural selection in consequence of the struggle for existence. The fifth chapter deals with the laws of variation and causes of modification other than natural selection. The five succeeding chapters consider difficulties in the way of a belief in evolution generally as well as in natural selection. The three remaining chapters (omitting the recapitulation which occupies the last) deal with the evidence for evolution. The theory which suggested a cause of evolution is thus given the foremost place, 842 and the evidence for the existence of evolution considered last of all. This method of presentation was no doubt adopted because it was just the want of a reasonable motive-cause which more than anything else prevented the acceptance of evolution. But the other side of the book must not be eclipsed by the brilliant theory of Darwin and Wallace. The evidence for evolution itself had never before been thought out and marshalled in a manner which bears any comparison with that of Darwin in the Origin, and the work would have been in the highest degree epoch-making had it consisted of the later chapters alone. In the fifth chapter Darwin incorporated a certain proportion of the doctrines of Buffon,—modifications due to the direct influence of environment; and of Lamarck,—the hereditary effects of use and disuse. Lyell for a long time hesitated to accept the new teaching, and Darwin carried on a long correspondence with him. His public confession of faith was made at the anniversary dinner of the Royal Society in 1864. A storm of controversy arose over the book, reaching its height at the meeting of the British Association at Oxford in 1860, when the celebrated duel between T. H. Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce of Oxford took place. Throughout these struggles Huxley was the foremost champion for evolution and for fair play to natural selection, although he never entirely accepted the latter theory, holding that until man by his selection had made his domestic breed sterile inter se, there was no sufficient evidence that selection accounts for natural species which are thus separated by the barrier of sterility. The theory of natural selection was at first greatly misunderstood. Thus some writers thought it implied conscious choice in the animals themselves, others that it was the personification of some active power. By many it was thought to be practically the same idea as Lamarck’s. Herbert Spencer’s alternative phrase, “the survival of the fittest,” probably helped to spread a clear appreciation of Darwin’s meaning.

Acting on the advice of Lyell and Hooker, Darwin began to work on what would become the most important project of his life. It was published on November 24, 1859, with the full title, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The entire edition of 1,250 copies sold out on the release day. The first four chapters explain how artificial selection by humans works alongside natural selection arising from the struggle for existence. The fifth chapter addresses the laws of variation and factors causing changes apart from natural selection. The next five chapters look at the challenges to accepting evolution in general and natural selection specifically. The last three chapters (not including the recap at the end) present the evidence for evolution. The theory proposing a cause for evolution is given priority, 842 while the evidence for evolution is discussed last. This approach was likely taken because the absence of a reasonable causal explanation was the main barrier to accepting evolution. However, Darwin and Wallace's brilliant theory should not overshadow the other side of the book. The evidence for evolution had never before been organized and presented as effectively as in Darwin's Origin, and the work would have been groundbreaking even if it only included the later chapters. In the fifth chapter, Darwin included some ideas from Buffon—modifications caused by the direct influence of the environment—and from Lamarck—the hereditary effects of use and disuse. Lyell took a long time to embrace the new teaching, and Darwin corresponded with him for an extended period. Lyell publicly declared his support at the Royal Society's anniversary dinner in 1864. A wave of controversy erupted over the book, reaching its peak during the British Association meeting at Oxford in 1860, where the famous debate between T. H. Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce of Oxford occurred. Throughout these debates, Huxley was the leading advocate for evolution and for fairness toward natural selection, although he never fully accepted that theory, believing that until humans made their domestic breeds sterile inter se, there was insufficient evidence to claim that natural selection explains species separated by sterility. Initially, the theory of natural selection was widely misunderstood. Some writers thought it suggested conscious choice among animals, while others viewed it as the personification of an active power. Many considered it virtually identical to Lamarck's idea. Herbert Spencer’s alternative term, “the survival of the fittest,” likely helped clarify Darwin's meaning.

The history of opinion since 1859 may be summed up as follows. Evolution soon gained general acceptance, except among a certain number of those of middle or more advanced age at the time when the Origin appeared. Although natural selection had been an essential force in producing this conviction, there gradually grew up a tendency to minimize its importance in relation to the causes originally suggested by Buffon and Lamarck, which were ably presented and further elaborated by Herbert Spencer. In America a school of Neo-Lamarckians appeared, and for a time flourished under the inspiration of the vigorous personality of E. D. Cope. The writings of August Weismann next raised a controversy over the scope of heredity, assailing the very foundation of the hypotheses of Buffon, Lamarck and Herbert Spencer by demanding evidence that the “acquired characters” upon which they rest are capable of hereditary transmission. The quantitative determination of heredity has been the subject of much patient investigation under the leadership of Francis Galton. The question of isolation as a factor in species-formation has been greatly discussed, G. J. Romanes proposing, in his hypothesis of “Physiological Selection,” that the barrier of sterility may arise spontaneously by variation between two sets of individuals as the beginning instead of the climax of specific distinction. Others have fixed their attention upon the variations, which provided the material for natural selection, and have advocated the view that evolution proceeds by immense strides instead of the minute steps in which Darwin and Wallace believed. Others, again, have found significance in the artificial production of “monstrosities” or huge modifications during individual development. All through the period a varying proportion of naturalists, probably larger now than at any other time, has followed the founders of the theory, and has sought the motive-cause of evolution in “the accumulative power of natural selection,” which Darwin, as his first public statement indicates, looked upon “as by far the most important element in the production of new forms.” They hold, with Darwin and Wallace, that although variation provides the essential material, natural selection, from its accumulative power, is of such paramount importance that it may be said to create new species as truly as a man may be said to make a building out of the material provided by stones of various shapes, a metaphor suggested and elaborated by Darwin, and forming the concluding sentences of The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. This, probably the second in importance of all his works, was published in 1868, and may be looked upon as a complete account of the material of which he had given a very condensed abstract in the first chapter of the Origin, together with the conclusions suggested by it. He finally brought together an immense number of apparently disconnected sets of observations under his “provisional hypothesis of pangenesis,” which assumes that every cell in the body, at every stage of growth and in maturity, is represented in each germ-cell by a gemmule. The germ-cell is only the meeting-place of gemmules, and the true reproductive power lies in the whole of the body-cells which despatch their representatives, hence “pangenesis.” There are reasons for believing that this infinitely complex conception, in which, as his letters show, he had great confidence, was forced upon Darwin in order to explain the hereditary transmission of acquired characters involved in the small proportion of Lamarckian doctrine which he incorporated. If such transmission does not occur, a far simpler hypothesis based on the lines of Weismann’s “continuity of the germ-plasm” is sufficient to account for the facts.

The history of opinions since 1859 can be summarized as follows. Evolution quickly became widely accepted, except among some people who were middle-aged or older when the Origin was released. Although natural selection was a key factor in establishing this belief, there gradually emerged a tendency to downplay its significance compared to the causes originally proposed by Buffon and Lamarck, which were skillfully presented and further developed by Herbert Spencer. In America, a group of Neo-Lamarckians emerged and thrived for a while, inspired by the dynamic personality of E. D. Cope. The writings of August Weismann sparked a debate about the extent of heredity, challenging the foundations of Buffon, Lamarck, and Herbert Spencer's hypotheses by demanding evidence that the “acquired characteristics” they relied on could be passed down genetically. The quantitative study of heredity has been the focus of extensive research led by Francis Galton. The role of isolation in species formation has been heavily debated, with G. J. Romanes suggesting, in his hypothesis of “Physiological Selection,” that the barrier of sterility may spontaneously arise through variation between two groups of individuals as a starting point rather than the culmination of specific distinction. Others have focused on the variations that provided the material for natural selection and have argued that evolution happens in large leaps rather than the gradual steps believed by Darwin and Wallace. Still, others have found relevance in the artificial creation of “monstrosities” or significant modifications during individual development. Throughout this period, a varying proportion of naturalists, likely larger than at any other time, has followed the founders of the theory, seeking the driving force behind evolution in “the accumulative power of natural selection,” which Darwin, in his first public statement, regarded as “by far the most important element in the production of new forms.” They agree with Darwin and Wallace that while variation supplies the essential material, natural selection, due to its cumulative power, is so crucial that it can be said to create new species as definitively as a man can be said to construct a building using stones of various shapes, a metaphor suggested and expanded by Darwin, which forms the concluding sentences of The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. This work, likely the second most important of all his writings, was published in 1868 and is considered a comprehensive account of the material he provided a very condensed overview of in the first chapter of the Origin, along with the conclusions it prompted. He ultimately compiled a vast number of seemingly disconnected observations under his “provisional hypothesis of pangenesis,” which posits that every cell in the body, at every stage of development and in maturity, is represented in each germ cell by a gemmule. The germ cell is merely a meeting point for gemmules, and the true reproductive power resides in all the body cells that send out their representatives, hence “pangenesis.” There are reasons to believe that this incredibly complex idea, in which, as his letters reveal, he had great confidence, was imposed upon Darwin to explain the hereditary transmission of acquired characteristics found in the small portion of Lamarckian theory he incorporated. If such transmission does not happen, a much simpler hypothesis, based on Weismann’s “continuity of the germ-plasm,” would be enough to explain the facts.

The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, was published in 1871; as the title implies, it really consists of two distinct works. The first, and by far the shorter, was the full justification of his statement in the Origin that “light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history.” In the second part he brought together a large mass of evidence in support of his hypothesis of sexual selection which he had briefly described in the 1858 essay. This hypothesis explains the development of colours and structures peculiar to one sex and displayed by it in courtship, by the preferences of the other sex. The majority of naturalists probably agree with Darwin in believing that the explanation is real, but relatively unimportant. It is interesting to note that only in this subject and those treated of in the Variation under Domestication had Darwin exhausted the whole of the material which he had collected. The Expression of the Emotions, published in 1872, offered a natural explanation of phenomena which appeared to be a difficulty in the way of the acceptance of evolution. In 1876 Darwin brought out his two previously published geological works on Volcanic Islands and South America as a single volume. The widely read Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms appeared in 1881. He also published various volumes on botanical subjects. The Fertilization of Orchids appeared in 1862. The subject of cross-fertilization of flowers was in Darwin’s mind, as shown by his note-book in 1837. In 1841 Robert Brown directed his attention to Christian Conrad Sprengel’s work (Berlin, 1793), which confirmed his determination to pursue this line of research. The Effects of Cross- and Self-Fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom (1876) contained the direct evidence that the offspring of cross-fertilized individuals are more vigorous, as well as more numerous, than those produced by a self-fertilized parent. Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species appeared in 1877. It is here shown that each different form, although possessing both kinds of sexual organs, is specially adapted to be fertilized by the pollen of another form, and that when artificially fertilized by its own pollen less vigorous offspring, bearing some resemblance to hybrids, are produced. He says, “no little discovery of mine ever gave me so much pleasure as the making out the meaning of heterostyled flowers” (Autobiography). Climbing Plants was published in 1875, although it had, in large part, been communicated to the Linnean Society, in whose publications much of the material of several of his other works appeared. This inquiry into the nature of the movements of twining plants was suggested to him in a paper by Asa Gray. The Power of Movement in Plants (1880) was produced by him in conjunction with his son Francis. It was an inquiry into the minute power of movement possessed, he believed, by plants generally, out of which the larger movements of climbing plants of many different groups had been evolved. The work included an investigation of other kinds of plant movement due to light, gravity, &c., all of which 843 he regarded as modifications of the one fundamental movement (circumnutation) which exists in a highly specialized form in climbing plants. Insectivorous Plants (1875) is principally concerned with the description of experiments on the Sun-dew (Drosera), although other insect-catching plants, such as Dionaea, are also investigated.

The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex was published in 1871; as the title suggests, it really consists of two separate works. The first, which is much shorter, fully justifies his claim in the Origin that "light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history." In the second part, he compiled a significant amount of evidence supporting his hypothesis of sexual selection, which he had briefly outlined in the 1858 essay. This hypothesis explains the development of colors and traits unique to one sex, displayed during courtship, based on the preferences of the other sex. Most naturalists likely agree with Darwin in believing that this explanation is valid but relatively minor. It's interesting to note that only in this topic, along with those in the Variation under Domestication, did Darwin fully utilize all the material he had gathered. The Expression of the Emotions, published in 1872, provided a natural explanation for phenomena that seemed to challenge the acceptance of evolution. In 1876, Darwin released his two earlier geological works on Volcanic Islands and South America as a single volume. The widely-read Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms was published in 1881. He also released various volumes on botanical topics. The Fertilization of Orchids came out in 1862. The idea of cross-fertilization in flowers had been on Darwin's mind, as indicated in his notebook from 1837. In 1841, Robert Brown brought his attention to Christian Conrad Sprengel’s work (Berlin, 1793), which confirmed his decision to pursue this area of research. The Effects of Cross- and Self-Fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom (1876) presented direct evidence that the offspring of cross-fertilized individuals are not only more vigorous but also more numerous than those from a self-fertilized parent. Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species was published in 1877. It showed that each different form, despite having both types of sexual organs, is specifically adapted to be fertilized by the pollen of another form, and that when artificially fertilized with its own pollen, it produces less vigorous offspring bearing some resemblance to hybrids. He stated, "no little discovery of mine ever gave me so much pleasure as the making out the meaning of heterostyled flowers" (Autobiography). Climbing Plants was published in 1875, although much of it had already been shared with the Linnean Society, where a lot of the material from several of his other works was published. This investigation into the nature of the movements of twining plants was inspired by a paper from Asa Gray. The Power of Movement in Plants (1880) was created by him in collaboration with his son Francis. It explored the small power of movement that he believed plants generally possessed, which led to the larger movements of climbing plants from various groups. The work included an investigation into other types of plant movements caused by light, gravity, etc., all of which he viewed as variations of one fundamental movement (circumnutation) that exists in a highly specialized form in climbing plants. Insectivorous Plants (1875) mainly describes experiments on the Sun-dew (Drosera), although other insect-eating plants, such as Dionaea, are also explored.

Charles Darwin’s long life of patient, continuous work, the most fruitful, the most inspiring, in the annals of modern science, came to an end on the 19th of April 1882. He was buried in Westminster Abbey on the 26th. It is of much interest to attempt to set forth some of the main characteristics of the man who did so much for modern science, and in so large a measure moulded the form of modern thought. Although his ill-health prevented Darwin, except on rare occasions, from attending scientific and social meetings, and thus from meeting and knowing the great body of scientific and intellectual workers of his time, probably no man has ever inspired a wider and deeper personal interest and affection. This was in part due to the intimate personal friends who represented him in the circles he was unable frequently to enter, but chiefly to the kindly, generous, and courteous nature which was revealed in his large correspondence and published writings, and especially in his treatment of opponents.

Charles Darwin’s long life of dedicated, ongoing work, the most productive and inspiring in the history of modern science, came to an end on April 19, 1882. He was buried in Westminster Abbey on the 26th. It’s quite interesting to outline some of the key traits of the man who contributed so much to modern science and significantly shaped modern thought. Although his poor health mostly kept Darwin from attending scientific and social gatherings, which limited his interaction with the many influential scientific and intellectual figures of his time, it's likely that no one has ever generated a broader and deeper personal interest and affection. This was partly due to his close personal friends who represented him in the circles he couldn’t often join, but mainly because of his kind, generous, and polite nature, which shone through in his extensive correspondence and published works, particularly in how he treated his critics.

In a deeply interesting chapter of the Life and Letters Francis Darwin has given us his reminiscences of his father’s everyday life. Rising early, he took a short walk before breakfasting alone at 7.45, and then at once set to work, “considering the 1½ hours between 8.0 and 9.30 one of his best working times.” He then read his letters and listened to reading aloud, returning to work at about 10.30. At 12 or 12.15 “he considered his day’s work over,” and went for a walk, whether wet or fine. For a time he rode, but after accidents had occurred twice, was advised to give it up. After lunch he read the newspaper and wrote his letters or the MS. of his books. At about 3.0 he rested and smoked for an hour while being read to, often going to sleep. He then went for a short walk, and returning about 4.30, worked for an hour. After this he rested and smoked, and listened to reading until tea at 7.30, a meal which he came to prefer to late dinner. He then played two games of backgammon, read to himself, and listened to music and to reading aloud. He went to bed, generally very much tired, at 10.30, and was often much troubled by wakefulness and the activity of his thoughts. It is thus apparent that the number of hours devoted to work in each day was comparatively few. The immense amount he achieved was due to concentration during these hours, also to the unfailing and, because of his health, the necessary regularity of his life.

In a fascinating chapter of the Life and Letters, Francis Darwin shares his memories of his father's daily routine. He woke up early and took a short walk before having breakfast alone at 7:45, then immediately got to work, considering the 1½ hours between 8:00 and 9:30 to be some of his most productive time. He read his letters and listened to someone read aloud, returning to work around 10:30. At 12 or 12:15, he felt his work for the day was done and went for a walk, regardless of the weather. He rode for a while, but after two accidents, he was advised to stop. After lunch, he read the newspaper and wrote letters or worked on his book manuscript. Around 3:00, he took a break and smoked for an hour while being read to, often dozing off. He then went for a short walk and, returning around 4:30, worked for another hour. After this, he rested, smoked, and listened to reading until tea at 7:30, which he began to prefer over a late dinner. He then played two games of backgammon, read to himself, and listened to music and more reading aloud. He usually went to bed very tired at 10:30 but often struggled with sleeplessness and racing thoughts. It’s clear that the number of hours he spent working each day was relatively few. The remarkable amount he accomplished was due to his focus during those hours, combined with the regularity of his life, which was necessary for his health.

The appearance of Charles Darwin has been made well known in numerous portraits and statues. He was tall and thin, being about six feet high, but looked less because of a stoop, which increased towards the end of his life. As a young man he had been active, with considerable powers of endurance, and possessed in a marked degree those qualities of eye and hand which make the successful sportsman.

The appearance of Charles Darwin is widely recognized through many portraits and statues. He was tall and thin, around six feet tall, but seemed shorter due to a stoop that became more pronounced in his later years. As a young man, he was active, with great endurance, and had notable coordination and skill that made him a successful athlete.

Charles Darwin was, as a young man, a believer in Christianity, and was sent to Cambridge with the idea that he would take orders. It is probable, however, that he had merely yielded to the influences of his home, without thinking much on the subject of religion. He first began to reflect deeply on the subject during the two years and a quarter which intervened between his return from the “Beagle” (October 2nd, 1836) and his marriage (January 29th, 1839). His own words are, “disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.” His attitude was that of the tolerant unaggressive agnostic, sympathizing with and helping in the social and charitable influences of the English Church in his parish. He was evidently most unwilling that his opinions on religious matters should influence others, holding, as his son, Francis Darwin, says, “that a man ought not to publish on a subject to which he has not given special and continuous thought” (l.c. i. p. 305).

Charles Darwin, as a young man, believed in Christianity and was sent to Cambridge with the intention of becoming a clergy member. However, it’s likely that he simply conformed to his surroundings without really contemplating religion. He started to think deeply about the topic during the two years and a quarter between his return from the “Beagle” (October 2nd, 1836) and his marriage (January 29th, 1839). He said, “disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was eventually complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.” His perspective was that of a tolerant, non-confrontational agnostic, supporting and participating in the social and charitable activities of the English Church in his local community. He clearly preferred not to let his views on religion affect others, believing, as his son Francis Darwin noted, “that a man ought not to publish on a subject to which he has not given special and continuous thought” (l.c. i. p. 305).

In addition to the personal qualities and powers of Charles Darwin, there were other contributing causes without which the world could never have reaped the benefit of his genius. It is evident that Darwin’s health could barely have endured the strain of working for a living, and that nothing would have been left over for his researches. A deep debt of gratitude is owing to his father for placing him in a position in which all his energy could be devoted to scientific work and thought. But his ill-health was such that this important and essential condition would have been insufficient without another even more essential. Francis Darwin, in the Life and Letters (i. pp. 159-160), writes these eloquent and pathetic words:—“No one indeed, except my mother, knows the full amount of suffering he endured, or the full amount of his wonderful patience. For all the latter years of his life she never left him for a night; and her days were so planned that all his resting hours might be shared with her. She shielded him from every avoidable annoyance, and omitted nothing that might save him trouble, or prevent him becoming over-tired, or that might alleviate the many discomforts of his ill-health. I hesitate to speak thus freely of a thing so sacred as the lifelong devotion which prompted all this constant and tender care. But it is, I repeat, a principal feature of his life, that for nearly forty years he never knew one day of the health of ordinary men, and that thus his life was one long struggle against the weariness and the strain of sickness. And this cannot be told without speaking of the one condition which enabled him to bear the strain and fight out the struggle to the end.”

In addition to Charles Darwin's personal qualities and abilities, there were other important factors that allowed the world to benefit from his genius. It's clear that Darwin's health could hardly handle the pressure of working a regular job, leaving him with little energy for his research. He owes a significant debt of gratitude to his father for putting him in a position where he could focus all his energy on scientific work and thought. However, his poor health was such that this crucial support alone wouldn't have been enough without another, even more essential factor. Francis Darwin, in the Life and Letters (i. pp. 159-160), writes these moving and poignant words: “No one except my mother knows the full extent of the suffering he endured or the incredible patience he exhibited. For all the later years of his life, she never spent a night away from him; her days were organized so that all his resting hours could be spent with her. She protected him from every avoidable inconvenience, and she did everything possible to save him from trouble, prevent him from becoming overtired, or ease the many discomforts caused by his poor health. I hesitate to speak so openly about something as sacred as the lifelong devotion that drove all this continual and tender care. But, as I’ve said, it is a key aspect of his life that for nearly forty years he never experienced a day of health like that of ordinary people, making his life one long struggle against the fatigue and pressure of illness. And this can’t be mentioned without acknowledging the one condition that allowed him to endure the pressure and fight through the struggle to the end.”

Charles Darwin was honoured by the chief societies of the civilized world. He was made a knight of the Prussian order, “Pour le Mérite,” in 1867, a corresponding member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences in 1863, a fellow in 1878, and later in the same year a corresponding member of the French Institute in the botanical section. He received the Bressa prize of the Royal Academy of Turin, and the Baly medal of the Royal College of Physicians in 1879, the Wollaston medal of the Geological Society in 1859, a Royal medal of the Royal Society in 1853, and the Copley medal in 1864. His health prevented him from accepting the honorary degree which Oxford University wished to confer on him, but his own university had stronger claims, and he received its honorary LL.D. in 1877.

Charles Darwin was recognized by the leading societies of the civilized world. He was made a knight of the Prussian order “Pour le Mérite” in 1867, a corresponding member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences in 1863, a fellow in 1878, and later that same year a corresponding member of the French Institute in the botanical section. He received the Bressa prize from the Royal Academy of Turin, and the Baly medal from the Royal College of Physicians in 1879, the Wollaston medal from the Geological Society in 1859, a Royal medal from the Royal Society in 1853, and the Copley medal in 1864. His health prevented him from accepting the honorary degree that Oxford University wanted to give him, but his own university had stronger claims, and he received its honorary LL.D. in 1877.

Two daughters and five sons survived him, four of the latter becoming prominent in the scientific world,—Sir George Howard (b. 1845), who became professor of astronomy and experimental philosophy at Cambridge in 1883; Francis (b. 1848), the distinguished botanist; Leonard (b. 1850), a major in the royal engineers, and afterwards well known as an economist; and Horace (b. 1851), civil engineer.

Two daughters and five sons survived him, four of whom became well-known in the scientific community: Sir George Howard (b. 1845), who became a professor of astronomy and experimental philosophy at Cambridge in 1883; Francis (b. 1848), the renowned botanist; Leonard (b. 1850), a major in the Royal Engineers, who later gained recognition as an economist; and Horace (b. 1851), a civil engineer.

See The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter, edited by his son Francis Darwin (3 vols., London, 1887); Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection, by E. B. Poulton (London, 1896); Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, by Leonard Huxley (2 vols., London, 1900); A. R. Wallace, Darwinism (1889); G. J. Romanes, Darwin and after Darwin (1895). Also the article on T. H. Huxley.

See The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter, edited by his son Francis Darwin (3 vols., London, 1887); Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection, by E. B. Poulton (London, 1896); Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, by Leonard Huxley (2 vols., London, 1900); A. R. Wallace, Darwinism (1889); G. J. Romanes, Darwin and after Darwin (1895). Also the article on T. H. Huxley.

(E. B. P.)

DARWIN, ERASMUS (1731-1802), English man of science and poet, was born at Elton, in Nottinghamshire, on the 12th of December 1731. After studying at St John’s College, Cambridge, and at Edinburgh, he settled in 1756 as a physician at Nottingham, but meeting with little success he moved in the following year to Lichfield. There he gained a large practice, and did much, both by example and by more direct effort, to diminish drunkenness among the lower classes. In 1781 he removed to Derby, where he died suddenly on the 18th of April 1802. The fame of Erasmus Darwin as a poet rests upon his Botanic Garden, though he also wrote The Temple of Nature, or the Origin of Society, a Poem, with Philosophical Notes (1803), and The Shrine of Nature (posthumously published). The Botanic Garden (the second part of which—The Loves of the Plants—was published anonymously in 1789, and the whole of which appeared in 1791) is a long poem in the decasyllabic rhymed couplet. Its merit lies in the genuine scientific enthusiasm and interest in nature which pervade it; and of any other poetic quality—except a certain, sometimes felicitous but oftener ill-placed, elaborated pomp of words—it may without injustice be said to be almost destitute. It was for the most part written laboriously, and polished with 844 unsparing care, line by line, often as he rode from one patient to another, and it occupied the leisure hours of many years. The artificial character of the diction renders it in emotional passages stilted and even absurd, and makes Canning’s clever caricature—The Loves of the Triangles—often remarkably like the poem it satirizes: in some passages, however, it is not without a stately appropriateness. Gnomes, sylphs and nereids are introduced on almost every page, and personification is carried to an extraordinary excess. Thus he describes the Loves of the Plants according to the Linnaean system by means of a most ingenious but misplaced and amusing personification of each plant, and often even of the parts of the plant. It is significant that botanical notes are added to the poem, and that its eulogies of scientific men are frequent. Erasmus Darwin’s mind was in fact rather that of a man of science than that of a poet. His most important scientific work is his Zoonomia (1794-1796), which contains a system of pathology, and a treatise on generation, in which he, in the words of his famous grandson, Charles Robert Darwin, “anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinions of Lamarck.” The essence of his views is contained in the following passage, which he follows up with the conclusion “that one and the same kind of living filaments is and has been the cause of all organic life”:—

DARWIN, ERASMUS (1731-1802), an English scientist and poet, was born in Elton, Nottinghamshire, on December 12, 1731. After studying at St John's College, Cambridge, and at Edinburgh, he became a physician in Nottingham in 1756. However, he had little success there and moved to Lichfield the following year. In Lichfield, he built a large practice and worked hard, both through example and direct action, to reduce drunkenness among the working class. In 1781, he relocated to Derby, where he died suddenly on April 18, 1802. Erasmus Darwin gained fame as a poet primarily through his Botanic Garden, although he also wrote The Temple of Nature, or the Origin of Society, a Poem, with Philosophical Notes (1803) and The Shrine of Nature (published posthumously). The Botanic Garden (the second part, The Loves of the Plants, was published anonymously in 1789, and the complete work was released in 1791) consists of a lengthy poem written in rhymed couplets of ten syllables. Its strength lies in the authentic scientific passion and appreciation for nature that flows through it; however, aside from a certain, sometimes well-placed but often overly grandiose use of language, it could be fairly said to lack other poetic qualities. Most of it was written with great effort and refined with meticulous care, line by line, often while he traveled from one patient to another, and it occupied his free time for many years. The overly formal style makes emotional sections feel forced and even ridiculous, which makes Canning’s clever parody, The Loves of the Triangles, often strikingly similar to the poem it mocks. Nonetheless, in some parts, there is a dignified appropriateness. Gnomes, sylphs, and nereids appear on nearly every page, and personification is taken to an extreme. He describes the Loves of the Plants according to the Linnaean classification using a highly creative but misplaced and humorous personification of each plant, and often even the parts of the plant. Notably, botanical notes are included in the poem, and it frequently praises scientific figures. In reality, Erasmus Darwin's mind was more that of a scientist than of a poet. His most significant scientific work is Zoonomia (1794-1796), which presents a system of pathology and a study on reproduction, in which he, as noted by his famous grandson, Charles Robert Darwin, “anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinions of Lamarck.” The essence of his views is captured in the following passage, which he concludes by stating “that one and the same kind of living filaments is and has been the cause of all organic life”:—

“Would it be too bold to imagine that, in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind,—would it be too bold to imagine that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the great First Cause endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions and associations, and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down these improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!”

"Is it too daring to think that, over the vast span of time since the earth came into being, maybe millions of years before humans appeared — is it too daring to think that all warm-blooded animals originated from one living thread, which the great First Cause infused with the ability to have life, the capacity to develop new traits, driven by impulses, feelings, intentions, and connections, thereby having the ability to keep evolving through its own natural efforts, and to pass these advancements on to its descendants, endlessly?"

In 1799 Darwin published his Phytologia, or the Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening (1799), in which he states his opinion that plants have sensation and volition. A paper on Female Education in Boarding Schools (1797) completes the list of his works.

In 1799, Darwin published his Phytologia, or the Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening, in which he expresses his belief that plants have feelings and the ability to make choices. A paper on Female Education in Boarding Schools from 1797 rounds out his collection of works.

Robert Waring Darwin (1766-1848), his third son by his first marriage, a doctor at Shrewsbury, was the father of the famous Charles Darwin; and Violetta, his eldest daughter by his second marriage, was the mother of Francis Galton.

Robert Waring Darwin (1766-1848), his third son from his first marriage, was a doctor in Shrewsbury and the father of the well-known Charles Darwin; and Violetta, his oldest daughter from his second marriage, was the mother of Francis Galton.

See Anna Seward, Memoirs of the Life of Dr Darwin (1804); and Charles Darwin, Life of Erasmus Darwin, an introduction to an essay on his works by Ernst Krause (1879).

See Anna Seward, Memoirs of the Life of Dr. Darwin (1804); and Charles Darwin, Life of Erasmus Darwin, an introduction to an essay on his works by Ernst Krause (1879).


DASENT, SIR GEORGE WEBBE (1817-1896), English writer, was born in St Vincent, West Indies, on the 22nd of May 1817, the son of the attorney-general of that island. He was educated at Westminster school, King’s College, and Oxford, where he was a contemporary of J. T. Delane (q.v.), whose friend he had become at King’s College. On leaving the university in 1840 he was appointed to a diplomatic post in Stockholm. Here he met Jacob Grimm, and at his suggestion first interested himself in Scandinavian literature and mythology. In 1842 he published the results of his studies, a version of The Prose or Younger Edda, and in the following year he issued a Grammar of the Icelandic or Old-Norse Tongue, taken from the Swedish. Returning to England in 1845, he became assistant editor of The Times under Delane, whose sister he married; but he still continued his Scandinavian studies, publishing translations of various Norse stories. In 1853 he was appointed professor of English literature and modern history at King’s College, London. In 1861-1862 he visited Iceland, and subsequently published Gisli the Outlaw and other translations from the Icelandic. In 1870 he was appointed a civil service commissioner and consequently resigned his post on The Times. In 1876 he was knighted. He retired from the public service in 1892, and died at Ascot on the 11th of June 1896. In addition to the works mentioned above, he published The Story of Burnt Njal, from the Icelandic of the Njals Saga (1861).

DASENT, SIR GEORGE WEBBE (1817-1896), English writer, was born in St Vincent, West Indies, on May 22, 1817, the son of the attorney-general of that island. He was educated at Westminster School, King’s College, and Oxford, where he was a contemporary of J. T. Delane (q.v.), who became his friend at King’s College. After leaving university in 1840, he was appointed to a diplomatic position in Stockholm. There, he met Jacob Grimm, who inspired him to take an interest in Scandinavian literature and mythology. In 1842, he published the results of his studies, a version of The Prose or Younger Edda, and the following year released a Grammar of the Icelandic or Old-Norse Tongue, adapted from the Swedish. After returning to England in 1845, he became assistant editor of The Times under Delane, whose sister he married; but he continued his Scandinavian studies, publishing translations of various Norse tales. In 1853, he was appointed professor of English literature and modern history at King’s College, London. He visited Iceland in 1861-1862 and subsequently published Gisli the Outlaw and other translations from the Icelandic. In 1870, he was appointed a civil service commissioner and thus resigned his position at The Times. He was knighted in 1876. He retired from public service in 1892 and died in Ascot on June 11, 1896. In addition to the works mentioned above, he published The Story of Burnt Njal, from the Icelandic of the Njals Saga (1861).

See the Life of Delane (1908), by Arthur Irwin Dasent.

See the Life of Delane (1908), by Arthur Irwin Dasent.


DASHKOV, CATHERINA ROMANOVNA VORONTSOV, Princess (1744-1810), Russian littérateur, was the third daughter of Count Roman Vorontsov, a member of the Russian senate, distinguished for his intellectual gifts. (For the family see Vorontsov.) She received an exceptionally good education, having displayed from a very early age the masculine ability and masculine tastes which made her whole career so singular. She was well versed in mathematics, which she studied at the university of Moscow, and in general literature her favourite authors were Bayle, Montesquieu, Boileau, Voltaire and Helvetius. While still a girl she was connected with the Russian court, and became one of the leaders of the party that attached itself to the grand duchess (afterwards empress) Catherine. Before she was sixteen she married Prince Mikhail Dashkov, a prominent Russian nobleman, and went to reside with him at Moscow. In 1762 she was at St Petersburg and took a leading part, according to her own account the leading part, in the coup d’état by which Catherine was raised to the throne. (See Catherine II.) Another course of events would probably have resulted in the elevation of the Princess Dashkov’s elder sister, Elizabeth, who was the emperor’s mistress, and in whose favour he made no secret of his intention to depose Catherine. Her relations with the new empress were not of a cordial nature, though she continued devotedly loyal. Her blunt manners, her unconcealed scorn of the male favourites that disgraced the court, and perhaps also her sense of unrequited merit, produced an estrangement between her and the empress, which ended in her asking permission to travel abroad. The cause of the final breach was said to have been the refusal of her request to be appointed colonel of the imperial guards. Her husband having meanwhile died, she set out in 1768 on an extended tour through Europe. She was received with great consideration at foreign courts, and her literary and scientific reputation procured her the entrée to the society of the learned in most of the capitals of Europe. In Paris she secured the warm friendship and admiration of Diderot and Voltaire. She showed in various ways a strong liking for England and the English. She corresponded with Garrick, Dr Blair and Principal Robertson; and when in Edinburgh, where she was very well received, she arranged to entrust the education of her son to Principal Robertson. In 1782 she returned to the Russian capital, and was at once taken into favour by the empress, who strongly sympathized with her in her literary tastes, and specially in her desire to elevate Russ to a place among the literary languages of Europe. Immediately after her return the princess was appointed “directeur” of the St Petersburg Academy of Arts and Sciences; and in 1784 she was named the first president of the Russian Academy, which had been founded at her suggestion. In both positions she acquitted herself with marked ability. She projected the Russian dictionary of the Academy, arranged its plan, and executed a part of the work herself. She edited a monthly magazine; and wrote at least two dramatic works, The Marriage of Fabian, and a comedy entitled Toissiokoff. Shortly before Catherine’s death the friends quarrelled over a tragedy which the princess had allowed to find a place in the publications of the Academy, though it contained revolutionary principles, according to the empress. A partial reconciliation was effected, but the princess soon afterwards retired from court. On the accession of the emperor Paul in 1796 she was deprived of all her offices, and ordered to retire to a miserable village in the government of Novgorod, “to meditate on the events of 1762.” After a time the sentence was partially recalled on the petition of her friends, and she was permitted to pass the closing years of her life on her own estate near Moscow, where she died on the 4th of January 1810.

DASHKOV, CATHERINA ROMANOVNA VORONTSOV, Princess (1744-1810), Russian littérateur, was the third daughter of Count Roman Vorontsov, a member of the Russian senate, known for his intellectual abilities. (For the family see Vorontsov.) She received an outstanding education, showing from a very young age the typically male skills and interests that made her career so unique. She was well-versed in mathematics, which she studied at the University of Moscow, and among her favorite authors in literature were Bayle, Montesquieu, Boileau, Voltaire, and Helvetius. As a young girl, she was connected to the Russian court and became one of the leaders of the faction loyal to the grand duchess (later empress) Catherine. Before turning sixteen, she married Prince Mikhail Dashkov, a prominent Russian nobleman, and moved to Moscow with him. In 1762, she was in St. Petersburg and played a major role—according to her, the major role—in the coup d’état that brought Catherine to the throne. (See Catherine II.) A different turn of events might have led to her elder sister, Elizabeth, who was the emperor’s mistress, being elevated instead, as he had openly expressed his intentions to depose Catherine in her favor. Although she remained loyally devoted to the new empress, her relationship with her was not warm. Her straightforward manner, open disdain for the male favorites who disgraced the court, and possibly her sense of unrecognized worth created a rift between her and the empress, leading her to request permission to travel abroad. The final break was reportedly due to her request to be appointed colonel of the imperial guards being denied. After her husband's death, she embarked on an extensive tour through Europe in 1768. She was treated with high regard at foreign courts, and her literary and scientific reputation earned her access to learned circles in many European capitals. In Paris, she formed a close friendship with Diderot and Voltaire. She expressed a strong affinity for England and the English, corresponding with Garrick, Dr. Blair, and Principal Robertson; and while in Edinburgh, where she was warmly welcomed, she arranged for Principal Robertson to educate her son. In 1782, she returned to the Russian capital and was quickly favored by the empress, who deeply appreciated her literary interests, particularly her desire to elevate Russian to a prominent literary language in Europe. Immediately after her return, the princess was appointed “directeur” of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts and Sciences; and in 1784, she became the first president of the Russian Academy, which had been established at her suggestion. In both roles, she performed exceptionally well. She initiated the Russian dictionary of the Academy, devised its structure, and contributed to the work herself. She edited a monthly magazine and wrote at least two plays, The Marriage of Fabian, and a comedy titled Toissiokoff. Shortly before Catherine's death, a dispute arose between the friends over a tragedy that the princess had allowed to be published by the Academy, which the empress claimed contained revolutionary themes. A partial reconciliation occurred, but the princess soon left the court. When emperor Paul ascended the throne in 1796, she was stripped of all her positions and ordered to withdraw to a poor village in Novgorod, “to reflect on the events of 1762.” After some time, this sentence was partially lifted due to petitions from her friends, allowing her to spend her final years on her own estate near Moscow, where she died on January 4, 1810.

Her son, the last of the Dashkov family, died in 1807 and bequeathed his fortune to his cousin Illarion Vorontsov, who thereupon by imperial licence assumed the name Vorontsov-Dashkov; and Illarion’s son, Illarion Ivanovich Vorontsov-Dashkov (b. 1837), held an appointment in the tsar’s household from 1881 to 1897.

Her son, the last of the Dashkov family, died in 1807 and left his fortune to his cousin Illarion Vorontsov, who then received imperial permission to take on the name Vorontsov-Dashkov; Illarion’s son, Illarion Ivanovich Vorontsov-Dashkov (b. 1837), held a position in the tsar’s household from 1881 to 1897.

The Memoirs of the Princess Dashkoff written by herself were published in 1840 in London in two volumes. They were edited by Mrs W. Bradford, who, as Miss Wilmot, had resided with the princess between 1803 and 1808, and had suggested their preparation.

The Memoirs of the Princess Dashkoff written by herself were published in 1840 in London in two volumes. They were edited by Mrs. W. Bradford, who, as Miss Wilmot, lived with the princess from 1803 to 1808 and had suggested that they be prepared.


DASS, PETTER (1647-1708), the “father” of modern Norwegian poetry, was the son of Peter Dundas, a Scottish merchant of Dundee, who, leaving his country about 1630 to 845 escape the troubles of the Presbyterian church, settled in Bergen, and in 1646 married a Norse girl of good family. Petter Dass was born in 1647 on the island of Nord Herö; on the north coast of Norway. Seven years later his father died, and his mother placed him with his aunt, the wife of the priest of another little island-parish. In 1660 he was sent to school at Bergen, in 1665 to the university of Copenhagen, and in 1667 he began to earn his daily bread as a private tutor. In 1672 he was ordained priest, and remained till 1681 as under-chaplain at Nesne, a little parish near his birthplace; for eight years more he was resident chaplain at Nesne; and at last in 1689 he received the living of Alstahoug, the most important in the north of Norway. The rule of Alstahoug extended over all the neighbouring districts, including Dass’s native island of Herö, and its privileges were accompanied by great perils, for it was necessary to be constantly crossing stormy firths of sea. Dass lived here in quietude, with something of the honours and responsibilities of a bishop, brought up his family in a God-fearing way, and wrote endless reams of verses. In 1700 he asked leave to resign his living in favour of his son Anders Dass, but this was not permitted; in 1704, however, Anders became his father’s chaplain. About this time Petter went to Bergen, where he visited Dorothea Engelbrechtsdatter, with whom he had been for many years in correspondence. He continued to write till 1707, and died in August 1708. The materials for his biography are very numerous; he was regarded with universal curiosity and admiration in his lifetime; and, besides, he left a garrulous autobiography in verse. A portrait, painted in middle age, now in the church of Melhus, near Trondhjem, represents him in canonicals, with deep red beard and hair, the latter waved and silky, and a head of massive proportions. The face is full of fire and vigour. His writings passed in MS. from hand to hand, and few of them were printed in his lifetime. Nordlands Trompet (The Trumpet of Nordland), his greatest and most famous poem, was not published till 1739; Den norska Dale-Vise (The Norwegian Song of the Valley) appeared in 1696; the Aandelig Tidsfordriv (Spiritual Pastime), a volume of sacred poetry, was published in 1711. The Trumpet of Nordland remains as fresh as ever in the memories of the inhabitants of the north of Norway; boatmen, peasants, priests will alike repeat long extracts from it at the slightest notice, and its popularity is unbounded. It is a rhyming description of the province of Nordland, its natural features, its trades, its advantages and its drawbacks, given in dancing verse of the most breathless kind, and full of humour, fancy, wit and quaint learning. The other poems of Petter Dass are less universally read; they abound, however, in queer turns of thought, and fine homely fancies.

DASS, PETTER (1647-1708), known as the “father” of modern Norwegian poetry, was the son of Peter Dundas, a Scottish merchant from Dundee. He left Scotland around 1630 to 845 escape the troubles of the Presbyterian church and settled in Bergen, where he married a well-born Norse woman in 1646. Petter Dass was born in 1647 on Nord Herö, an island on Norway's north coast. Seven years later, his father died, and his mother sent him to live with his aunt, who was married to the priest of another small island parish. In 1660, he attended school in Bergen, then moved to the University of Copenhagen in 1665, and by 1667, he was working as a private tutor to support himself. He was ordained as a priest in 1672 and served as an under-chaplain at Nesne, a small parish near his birthplace, until 1681. He remained the resident chaplain at Nesne for another eight years, and in 1689, he was appointed to the more significant position at Alstahoug, the most important parish in northern Norway. The Alstahoug parish included all the surrounding areas, including Dass's home island of Herö, but the role came with great challenges, as it required frequent crossings of tumultuous seas. Dass lived a quiet life here, enjoying some of the honors and responsibilities of a bishop, raised his family with strong religious values, and wrote countless verses. In 1700, he requested to resign in favor of his son, Anders Dass, but that was denied; however, in 1704, Anders became his father's chaplain. Around this time, Petter visited Bergen to meet with Dorothea Engelbrechtsdatter, a long-time correspondent. He continued his writing until 1707 and passed away in August 1708. There are many materials documenting his life; he was widely admired during his lifetime and also left behind a detailed autobiographical poem. A portrait of him from his middle age, located in the church of Melhus near Trondhjem, shows him in ecclesiastical robes with a deep red beard and silky, wavy hair, along with a notably large head. His face exudes passion and energy. Most of his writings circulated in manuscript form without being printed during his lifetime. Nordlands Trompet (The Trumpet of Nordland), his most significant and renowned poem, wasn't published until 1739; Den norska Dale-Vise (The Norwegian Song of the Valley) was released in 1696, and Aandelig Tidsfordriv (Spiritual Pastime), a collection of sacred poetry, was published in 1711. The Trumpet of Nordland remains vividly remembered by the people in northern Norway; fishermen, farmers, and priests alike can recite long passages at the drop of a hat, and its popularity is immense. It is a rhymed portrayal of the Nordland province, highlighting its landscapes, industries, strengths, and weaknesses, presented in lively, dynamic verse overflowing with humor, imagination, cleverness, and charming knowledge. Petter Dass's other poems are not as widely read, but they are rich in whimsical thoughts and delightful, relatable ideas.

The collected writings of Dass were edited (3 vols., Christiania, 1873-1877) by Dr A. E. Eriksen.

The collected writings of Dass were edited (3 vols., Christiania, 1873-1877) by Dr. A. E. Eriksen.


DASYURE, a bookname for any member of the zoological family Dasyuridae. (See Marsupialia.) The name is better restricted to animals of the typical genus Dasyurus, sometimes called true Dasyures. These are mostly inhabitants of the Australian continent and Tasmania, where in the economy of nature they take the place of the smaller predaceous Carnivora, the cats, civets and weasels of other parts of the world. They hide themselves in the daytime in holes among rocks or in hollow trees, but prowl about at night in search of the small living mammals and birds which constitute their prey, and are to some extent arboreal in habit. The spot-tailed dasyure (D. maculatus), about the size of a cat, inhabiting Tasmania and Southern Australia, has transversely striated pads on the soles of the feet. These organs are also present in the North Australian dasyure (D. hallucatus) and the Papuan D. albopunctatus, and are regarded by Oldfield Thomas as indication of arboreal habits; in the common dasyure (D. viverrinus) from Tasmania and Victoria, and the black-tailed dasyure (D. geoffroyi) from South Australia, these feet-pads are absent, whence these species are believed to seek their prey on the ground. The ursine dasyure (Sarcophilus ursinus), often called the “Tasmanian Devil,” constitutes a distinct genus. In size it may be compared to an English badger; the general colour of the fur is black tinged with brown, with white patches on the neck, shoulders, rump and chest. It is a burrowing animal, of nocturnal habits, intensely carnivorous, and commits great depredations on the sheepyards and poultry-lofts of the settlers. In writing of this species Krefft says that one—by no means a large one—escaped from confinement and killed in two nights fifty-four fowls, six geese, an albatross and a cat. It was recaptured in what was considered a stout trap, with a door constructed of iron bars as thick as a lead pencil, but escaped by twisting this solid obstacle aside.

Dasyure is a term for any member of the zoological family Dasyuridae. (See Marsupialia.) It's more accurately used for animals of the typical genus Dasyurus, sometimes known as true Dasyures. These mainly live in Australia and Tasmania, where they play the role of the smaller predatory Carnivora, like cats, civets, and weasels found elsewhere in the world. They hide during the day in holes among rocks or in hollow trees, but come out at night to hunt small mammals and birds that make up their diet, and they are somewhat arboreal. The spot-tailed dasyure (D. maculatus), about the size of a cat, is found in Tasmania and Southern Australia and has cross-striped pads on the soles of its feet. These pads are also seen in the North Australian dasyure (D. hallucatus) and the Papuan D. albopunctatus, which Oldfield Thomas considers a sign of tree-dwelling behavior; in contrast, the common dasyure (D. viverrinus) from Tasmania and Victoria, and the black-tailed dasyure (D. geoffroyi) from South Australia, lack these foot pads, suggesting they hunt on the ground. The ursine dasyure (Sarcophilus ursinus), often called the “Tasmanian Devil,” is part of a separate genus. It’s about the size of an English badger, its fur is generally black with a brown tint, and it has white patches on its neck, shoulders, rump, and chest. This animal digs burrows, is nocturnal, and is highly carnivorous, causing significant damage to the sheep and poultry of farmers. Krefft wrote about one individual—which was not particularly large—that escaped confinement and, within two nights, killed fifty-four chickens, six geese, an albatross, and a cat. It was recaptured in what was thought to be a sturdy trap, designed with a door made of iron bars as thick as a pencil, but it escaped by twisting this solid barrier aside.


DATE PALM. The dates1 of commerce are the fruit of a species of palm, Phoenix dactylifera, a tree which ranges from the Canary Islands through Northern Africa and the south-east of Asia to India. It has been cultivated and much prized throughout most of these regions from the remotest antiquity. Its cultivation and use are described on the mural tablets of the ancient Assyrians. In Arabia it is the chief source of national wealth, and its fruit forms the staple article of food in that country. The tree has also been introduced along the Mediterranean shores of Europe; but as its fruit does not ripen so far north, the European plants are only used to supply leaves for the festival of Palm Sunday among Christians, and for the celebration of the Passover by Jews. It was introduced into the new world by early Spanish missionaries, and is now cultivated in the dry districts of the south-western United States and in Mexico. The date palm is a beautiful tree, growing to a height of from 60 to 80 ft., and its stem, which is strongly marked with old leaf-scars, terminates in a crown of graceful shining pinnate leaves. The flowers spring in branching spadices from the axils of the leaves, and as the trees are unisexual it is necessary in cultivation to fertilize the female flowers by artificial means. The fruit is oblong, fleshy and contains one very hard seed which is deeply furrowed on the inside. The fruit varies much in size, colour and quality under cultivation. Regarding this fruit, W. G. Palgrave (Central and Eastern Arabia) remarked: “Those who, like most Europeans at home, only know the date from the dried specimens of that fruit shown beneath a label in shop-windows, can hardly imagine how delicious it is when eaten fresh and in Central Arabia. Nor is it, when newly gathered, heating,—a defect inherent to the preserved fruit everywhere; nor does its richness, however great, bring satiety; in short it is an article of food alike pleasant and healthy.” In the oases of Sahara, and in other parts of Northern Africa, dates are pounded and pressed into a cake for food. The dried fruit used for dessert in European countries contains more than half its weight of sugar, about 6% of albumen, and 12% of gummy matter. All parts of the date palm yield valuable economic products. Its trunk furnishes timber for house-building and furniture; the leaves supply thatch; their footstalks are used as fuel, and also yield a fibre from which cordage is spun.

DATE PALM. The dates1 used for trade come from a type of palm tree, Phoenix dactylifera, which grows from the Canary Islands through Northern Africa and into Southeast Asia, all the way to India. It has been cultivated and highly valued in most of these areas since ancient times. The cultivation and use of dates are depicted on the mural tablets of the ancient Assyrians. In Arabia, it is the main source of national wealth, and its fruit is a staple food in the country. The tree has also been introduced along the Mediterranean coasts of Europe; however, since its fruit does not ripen in northern regions, European plants are primarily used to provide leaves for the Palm Sunday festival among Christians and for Passover celebrations by Jews. It was brought to the New World by early Spanish missionaries and is now grown in the dry areas of the southwestern United States and in Mexico. The date palm is an attractive tree, reaching heights of 60 to 80 feet, with a trunk that displays distinctive old leaf scars and a crown of elegant, shiny pinnate leaves. The flowers grow in branching spikes from the leaf axils, and since the trees are unisexual, it is necessary to manually fertilize the female flowers during cultivation. The fruit is elongated, fleshy, and contains one very hard seed that is deeply grooved on the inside. The size, color, and quality of the fruit vary considerably under cultivation. Regarding this fruit, W. G. Palgrave (Central and Eastern Arabia) noted: “Those who, like most Europeans at home, only know the date from the dried versions displayed beneath labels in store windows can hardly imagine how delicious it is when eaten fresh in Central Arabia. It isn’t heating when freshly harvested—a drawback found in preserved fruit everywhere; nor does its richness, no matter how substantial, cause satiety; in short, it is a food that is both enjoyable and healthy.” In the oases of the Sahara and other parts of Northern Africa, dates are ground and pressed into cakes for consumption. The dried fruit commonly served as dessert in European countries contains over half its weight in sugar, about 6% protein, and 12% gum. All parts of the date palm provide valuable economic resources. Its trunk supplies timber for building homes and making furniture; the leaves are used for thatching; the leaf stalks serve as fuel and produce a fiber for making rope.

Date sugar is a valuable commercial product of the East Indies, obtained from the sap or toddy of Phoenix sylvestris, the toddy palm, a tree so closely allied to the date palm that it has been supposed to be the parent stock of all the cultivated varieties. The juice, when not boiled down to form sugar, is either drunk fresh, or fermented and distilled to form arrack. The uses of the other parts and products of this tree are the same as those of the date palm products. Date palm meal is obtained from the stem of a small species, Phoenix farinifera, growing in the hill country of southern India.

Date sugar is a valuable commercial product from the East Indies, derived from the sap or toddy of Phoenix sylvestris, the toddy palm. This tree is so closely related to the date palm that it is believed to be the ancestor of all cultivated varieties. The juice, when not boiled down to make sugar, is either consumed fresh or fermented and distilled to create arrack. The uses of the other parts and products of this tree are similar to those of date palm products. Date palm meal is sourced from the stem of a small species, Phoenix farinifera, that grows in the hilly regions of southern India.

For further details see Sir G. Watt, Dictionary of the Economic Products of India (1892); and The Date Palm, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin No. 53 (W. T. Swingle), 1904.

For more information, see Sir G. Watt, Dictionary of the Economic Products of India (1892); and The Date Palm, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin No. 53 (W. T. Swingle), 1904.


1 Lat. dactylus, finger, hence fruit of the date palm, gave O. Fr. date, mod. datte; distinguish “date,” in chronology, from Lat. datum, data, given, used at the beginning of a letter, &c., to show time and place of writing, e.g. Datum Romae.

1 Lat. dactylus, meaning finger, is where the word for the fruit of the date palm comes from, leading to O. Fr. date and modern datte; it's important to differentiate “date,” in terms of time, from Lat. datum, data, which means given, and is used at the start of a letter, etc., to indicate the time and place of writing, for example, Datum Romae.


DATIA, a native state of Central India, in the Bundelkhand agency. It lies in the extreme north-west of Bundelkhand, near Gwalior, and is surrounded on all sides by other states of Central India, except on the east where it meets the United Provinces. The state came under the British government after the treaty of Bassein in 1802. Area, 911 sq. m. Pop. (1901) 173,759. Estimated revenue, £70,000; tribute to Sindhia paid through the 846 British Government, £1000. The chief, whose title is maharaja, is a Rajput of the Bundela clan, being descended from a younger son of a former chief of Orchha. The state suffered from famine in 1896-1897, and again to a less extent in 1899-1900. It is traversed by the branch of the Indian Midland railway from Jhansi to Gwalior. The town of Datia has a railway station, 16 m. from Jhansi. Pop. (1901) 24,071. It is surrounded by a stone wall, enclosing handsome palaces, with gardens; the palace of Bir Singh Deo, of the 17th century, is “one of the finest examples of Hindu domestic architecture in India” (Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1908).

DATIA, is a native state in Central India, located in the Bundelkhand agency. It is situated in the far north-west of Bundelkhand, close to Gwalior, and is bordered by other states of Central India on all sides, except to the east where it shares a border with the United Provinces. The state became part of the British government after the Treaty of Bassein in 1802. It covers an area of 911 square miles. The population was 173,759 in 1901. The estimated revenue is £70,000, and it pays a tribute of £1,000 to Sindhia through the 846 British Government. The chief, known as the maharaja, is a Rajput from the Bundela clan and is a descendant of a younger son of a former chief of Orchha. The state experienced famine in 1896-1897 and again to a lesser extent in 1899-1900. It is crossed by a branch of the Indian Midland railway from Jhansi to Gwalior. The town of Datia has a railway station that is 16 miles from Jhansi, with a population of 24,071 in 1901. It is surrounded by a stone wall that encloses beautiful palaces and gardens; the palace of Bir Singh Deo, built in the 17th century, is considered “one of the finest examples of Hindu domestic architecture in India” (Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1908).


DATIVE (Lat. dativus, giving or given, from dare, to give), the name, in grammar, of the case of the “indirect object,” the person or thing to or for whom or which anything is given or done. In law, the word signifies something, such as an office, which may be disposed of at will or pleasure, and is opposed to perpetual. In Scots law the term is applied to persons, duties or powers, appointed or granted by a court of law; thus an “executor-dative” is an executor appointed by the court and not by a testator. It answers, therefore, to the English administrator (q.v.). In Roman law, a tutor was either dativus, if expressly nominated in a testament, or optivus, if a power of selection was given.

DATIVE (Latin dativus, meaning giving or given, from dare, to give), refers to the grammatical case of the "indirect object," which is the person or thing to or for whom something is given or done. In legal terms, it means something, like a position, that can be assigned at will and is the opposite of perpetual. In Scots law, the term refers to individuals, duties, or powers appointed or granted by a court; for instance, an “executor-dative” is an executor designated by the court rather than by a will. This is similar to the English term administrator (see above). In Roman law, a tutor was considered dativus if specifically named in a will, or optivus if a choice was given.


DATOLITE, a mineral species consisting of basic calcium and boron orthosilicate, Ca(BOH)SiO4. It was first observed by J. Esmark in 1806, and named by him from δατεῖσθαι, “to divide,” and λίθος, “stone,” in allusion to the granular structure of the massive mineral. It usually occurs as well-developed glassy crystals bounded by numerous bright faces, many of which often have a more or less pentagonal outline. The crystals were for a long time considered to be orthorhombic, and indeed they approach closely to this system in habit, interfacial angles and optical orientation; humboldtite was the name given by A. Lévy in 1823 to monoclinic crystals supposed to be distinct from datolite, but the two were afterwards proved to be identical. The mineral also occurs as masses with a granular to compact texture; when compact the fractured surfaces have the appearance of porcelain. A fibrous variety with a botryoidal or globular surface is known as botryolite. Datolite is white or colourless, often with a greenish tinge; it is transparent or opaque. Hardness 5-5½; specific gravity 3.0.

DATOLITE, is a mineral species made up of basic calcium and boron orthosilicate, Ca(BOH)SiO4. It was first discovered by J. Esmark in 1806, and he named it from δατεῖσθαι, meaning “to divide,” and stone, meaning “stone,” referring to the granular structure of the solid mineral. It typically appears as well-formed glassy crystals with many shiny faces, many of which often have a somewhat pentagonal shape. For a long time, the crystals were believed to be orthorhombic, and they closely resemble this system in form, interfacial angles, and optical orientation; humboldtite was the name given by A. Lévy in 1823 to monoclinic crystals thought to be different from datolite, but later it was shown that the two are the same. The mineral can also be found in masses that have a granular to compact texture; when compact, the broken surfaces look like porcelain. A fibrous variant with a botryoidal or globular surface is known as botryolite. Datolite is white or colorless, often with a greenish hint; it can be transparent or opaque. Hardness 5-5½; specific gravity 3.0.

Datolite is a mineral of secondary origin, and in its mode of occurrence it resembles the zeolites, being found with them in the amygdaloidal cavities of basic igneous rocks such as basalt; it is also found in gneiss and serpentine, and in metalliferous veins and in beds of iron ore. At Arendal in Norway, the original locality for both the crystallized and botryoidal varieties, it is found in a bed of magnetite. In amygdaloidal basaltic rocks it is found at Bishopton in Renfrewshire and near Edinburgh; and as excellent crystallized specimens at several localities in the United States, e.g. at Westfield in Massachusetts, Bergen and Paterson in New Jersey, and in the copper-mining region of Lake Superior. At St Andreasberg in the Harz it occurs both in diabase and in the veins of silver ore. Fine specimens have recently been obtained from Tasmania.

Datolite is a mineral of secondary origin, and its occurrence is similar to that of zeolites, as it is found alongside them in the amygdaloidal cavities of basic igneous rocks like basalt. It is also present in gneiss, serpentine, metalliferous veins, and beds of iron ore. In Arendal, Norway—its original location for both crystallized and botryoidal varieties—it can be found in a magnetite bed. In amygdaloidal basaltic rocks, it appears at Bishopton in Renfrewshire and near Edinburgh, as well as in excellent crystallized specimens at several places in the United States, such as Westfield in Massachusetts, Bergen, and Paterson in New Jersey, and in the copper-mining area of Lake Superior. It can also be found at St Andreasberg in the Harz, both in diabase and in silver ore veins. Recently, fine specimens have been sourced from Tasmania.

Large crystals of datolite completely altered to chalcedony were formerly found with magnetite in the Haytor iron mine on Dartmoor in Devonshire; to these pseudomorphs the name haytorite has been applied.

Large crystals of datolite that were completely changed into chalcedony used to be found alongside magnetite in the Haytor iron mine on Dartmoor in Devon; these pseudomorphs are known as haytorite.

(L. J. S.)

DAUB, KARL (1765-1836), German Protestant theologian, was born at Cassel on the 20th of March 1765. He studied philosophy, philology and theology at Marburg in 1786, and eventually (1795) became professor ordinarius of theology at Heidelberg, where he died on the 22nd of November 1836. Daub was one of the leaders of a school which sought to reconcile theology and philosophy, and to bring about a speculative reconstruction of orthodox dogma. In the course of his intellectual development, he came successively under the influence of Kant, Schelling and Hegel, and on account of the different phases through which he passed he was called the Talleyrand of German thought. There was one great defect in his speculative theology: he ignored historical criticism. His purpose was, as Otto Pfleiderer says, “to connect the metaphysical ideas, which had been arrived at by means of philosophical dialectic, directly with the persons and events of the Gospel narratives, thus raising these above the region of ordinary experience into that of the supernatural, and regarding the most absurd assertions as philosophically justified. Daub had become so hopelessly addicted to this perverse principle that he deduced not only Jesus as the embodiment of the philosophical idea of the union of God and man, but also Judas Iscariot as the embodiment of the idea of a rival god, or Satan.” The three stages in Daub’s development are clearly marked in his writings. His Lehrbuch der Katechetik (1801) was written under the spell of Kant. His Theologumena (1806), his Einleitung in das Studium der christl. Dogmatik (1810), and his Judas Ischarioth (2 vols., 1816, 2nd ed., 1818), were all written in the spirit of Schelling, the last of them reflecting a change in Schelling himself from theosophy to positive philosophy. Daub’s Die dogmatische Theologie jetziger Zeit oder die Selbstsucht in der Wissenschaft des Glaubens (1833), and Vorlesungen über die Prolegomena zur Dogmatik (1839), are Hegelian in principle and obscure in language.

DAUB, KARL (1765-1836), a German Protestant theologian, was born in Kassel on March 20, 1765. He studied

See Rosenkranz, Erinnerungen an Karl Daub (1837); D. Fr. Strauss, Charakteristiken und Kritiken (2nd ed., 1844); and cf. F. Lichtenberger, History of German Theology (1889); Otto Pfleiderer, Development of Theology (1890).

See Rosenkranz, Erinnerungen an Karl Daub (1837); D. Fr. Strauss, Charakteristiken und Kritiken (2nd ed., 1844); and cf. F. Lichtenberger, History of German Theology (1889); Otto Pfleiderer, Development of Theology (1890).

(M. A. C.)

DAUBENTON, LOUIS-JEAN-MARIE (1716-1800), French naturalist, was born at Montbar (Côte d’Or) on the 29th of May 1716. His father, Jean Daubenton, a notary, destined him for the church, and sent him to Paris to learn theology, but the study of medicine was more to his taste. The death of his father in 1736 set him free to follow his own inclinations, and accordingly in 1741 he graduated in medicine at Reims, and returned to his native town with the intention of practising as a physician. But about this time Buffon, also a native of Montbar, had formed the plan of bringing out a grand treatise on natural history, and in 1742 he invited Daubenton to assist him by providing the anatomical descriptions for that work. The characters of the two men were opposed in almost every respect. Buffon was violent and impatient; Daubenton, gentle and patient; Buffon was rash in his judgments, and imaginative, seeking rather to divine than to discover truths; Daubenton was cautious, and believed nothing he had not himself been able to see or ascertain. From nature each appeared to have received the qualities requisite to temper those of the other; and a more suitable coadjutor than Daubenton it would have been difficult for Buffon to obtain. In the first section of the natural history Daubenton gave descriptions and details of the dissection of 182 species of quadrupeds, thus procuring for himself a high reputation, and exciting the envy of Réaumur, who considered himself as at the head of the learned in natural history in France. A feeling of jealousy induced Buffon to dispense with the services of Daubenton in the preparation of the subsequent parts of his work, which, as a consequence, lost much in precision and scientific value. Buffon afterwards perceived and acknowledged his error, and renewed his intimacy with his former associate. The number of dissertations on natural history which Daubenton published in the memoirs of the French Academy is very great. Zoological descriptions and dissections, the comparative anatomy of recent and fossil animals, vegetable physiology, mineralogy, experiments in agriculture, and the introduction of the merino sheep into France gave active occupation to his energies; and the cabinet of natural history in Paris, of which in 1744 he was appointed keeper and demonstrator, was arranged and considerably enriched by him. From 1775 Daubenton lectured on natural history in the college of medicine, and in 1783 on rural economy at the Alfort school. He was also professor of mineralogy at the Jardin du Roi. As a lecturer he was in high repute, and to the last retained his popularity. In December 1799 he was appointed a member of the senate, but at the first meeting which he attended he fell from his seat in an apoplectic fit, and after a short illness died at Paris on the 1st of January 1800.

DAUBENTON, LOUIS-JEAN-MARIE (1716-1800), French naturalist, was born in Montbar (Côte d’Or) on May 29, 1716. His father, Jean Daubenton, a notary, intended for him to become a clergyman and sent him to Paris to study theology. However, Daubenton preferred studying medicine. After his father's death in 1736, he was free to pursue his own interests, and in 1741 he earned his medical degree in Reims, returning to his hometown to practice as a physician. Around this time, Buffon, also from Montbar, planned to create a major work on natural history and invited Daubenton in 1742 to help with the anatomical descriptions for the project. The two men had very different personalities: Buffon was hot-tempered and impatient, while Daubenton was calm and patient; Buffon often jumped to conclusions and relied on imagination, while Daubenton was cautious and only believed what he could observe or verify. Nature seemed to have given each man the traits needed to balance the other, making Daubenton a fitting collaborator for Buffon. In the first section of the natural history, Daubenton contributed descriptions and details from the dissection of 182 species of quadrupeds, earning him significant recognition and arousing the envy of Réaumur, who considered himself the leading scholar in natural history in France. Jealousy led Buffon to exclude Daubenton from the subsequent parts of his work, which suffered in precision and scientific merit as a result. Buffon eventually realized his mistake and rekindled his friendship with Daubenton. Daubenton published numerous papers on natural history in the memoirs of the French Academy. His work included zoological descriptions and dissections, comparative anatomy of recent and fossil animals, plant physiology, mineralogy, agricultural experiments, and introducing the merino sheep to France, keeping him actively engaged. In 1744, he became the curator and demonstrator of the natural history cabinet in Paris, which he significantly improved and expanded. From 1775, Daubenton lectured on natural history at the college of medicine and on rural economy at the Alfort school in 1783. He also served as a professor of mineralogy at the Jardin du Roi. He was a respected lecturer and remained popular until the end of his life. In December 1799, he was appointed a senator, but during his first meeting, he collapsed from a stroke and died shortly after, on January 1, 1800, in Paris.


DAUBENY, CHARLES GILES BRIDLE (1795-1867), English chemist, botanist and geologist, was the third son of the Rev. James Daubeny, and was born at Stratton in Gloucestershire on 847 the 11th of February 1795. In 1808 he went to Winchester, and in 1810 he was elected to a demyship at Magdalen College, Oxford, where the lectures of Dr Kidd first awakened in him a desire for the cultivation of natural science. In 1814 he graduated with second-class honours, and in the next year he obtained the prize for the Latin essay. From 1815 to 1818 he studied medicine in London and Edinburgh. He took his M.D. degree at Oxford, and was a fellow of the College of Physicians. In 1819, in the course of a tour through France, he made the volcanic district of Auvergne a special study, and his Letters on the Volcanos of Auvergne were published in The Edinburgh Journal, 1820-21. He was elected F.R.S. in 1822. By subsequent journeys in Hungary, Transylvania, Italy, Sicily, France and Germany he extended his knowledge of volcanic phenomena; and in 1826 the results of his observations were given in a work entitled A Description of Active and Extinct Volcanos (2nd ed., 1848). In common with Gay Lussac and Davy, he held subterraneous thermic disturbances to be probably due to the contact of water with metals of the alkalis and alkaline earths. In November 1822 Daubeny succeeded Dr Kidd as professor of chemistry at Oxford, and retained this post until 1855; and in 1834 he was appointed to the chair of botany, to which was subsequently attached that of rural economy. At the Oxford botanic garden he conducted numerous experiments upon the effect of changes in soil, light and the composition of the atmosphere upon vegetation. In 1830 he published in the Philosophical Transactions a paper on the iodine and bromine of mineral waters. In the following year appeared his Introduction to the Atomic Theory, which was succeeded by a supplement in 1840, and in 1850 by a second edition. In 1831 Daubeny represented the universities of England at the first meeting of the British Association, which at his request held their next session at Oxford. In 1836 he communicated to the Association a report on the subject of mineral and thermal waters. In 1837 he visited the United States, and acquired there the materials for papers on the thermal springs and the geology of North America, read in 1838 before the Ashmolean Society and the British Association. In 1856 he became president of the latter body at its meeting at Cheltenham. In 1841 Daubeny published his Lectures on Agriculture; in 1857 his Lectures on Roman Husbandry; in 1863 Climate: an inquiry into the causes of its differences and into its influence on Vegetable Life; and in 1865 an Essay on the Trees and Shrubs of the Ancients, and a Catalogue of the Trees and Shrubs indigenous to Greece and Italy. His last literary work was the collection of his Miscellanies, published in two volumes, in 1867. In all his undertakings Daubeny was actuated by a practical spirit and a desire for the advancement of knowledge; and his personal influence on his contemporaries was in keeping with the high character of his various literary productions. He died in Oxford on the 12th of December 1867.

DAUBENY, CHARLES GILES BRIDLE (1795-1867), English chemist, botanist, and geologist, was the third son of Rev. James Daubeny. He was born in Stratton, Gloucestershire, on 847, February 11, 1795. In 1808, he went to Winchester, and in 1810, he was elected to a demyship at Magdalen College, Oxford, where Dr. Kidd's lectures first sparked his interest in natural science. In 1814, he graduated with second-class honors, and the following year he won the prize for a Latin essay. From 1815 to 1818, he studied medicine in London and Edinburgh. He received his M.D. degree from Oxford and became a fellow of the College of Physicians. In 1819, during a tour through France, he conducted a special study of the volcanic area of Auvergne, and his Letters on the Volcanos of Auvergne were published in The Edinburgh Journal, 1820-21. He was elected F.R.S. in 1822. Through subsequent travels in Hungary, Transylvania, Italy, Sicily, France, and Germany, he deepened his understanding of volcanic phenomena; in 1826, he published a work titled A Description of Active and Extinct Volcanos (2nd ed., 1848). Along with Gay Lussac and Davy, he theorized that underground thermal disturbances were likely caused by water contacting alkali and alkaline earth metals. In November 1822, Daubeny replaced Dr. Kidd as professor of chemistry at Oxford, a position he held until 1855. In 1834, he was appointed to the chair of botany, which he later combined with rural economy. At the Oxford botanic garden, he carried out numerous experiments on how changes in soil, light, and atmospheric composition affect plants. In 1830, he published a paper in the Philosophical Transactions about iodine and bromine in mineral waters. The following year, he released his Introduction to the Atomic Theory, followed by a supplement in 1840 and a second edition in 1850. In 1831, Daubeny represented English universities at the first meeting of the British Association, which he requested to hold its next session in Oxford. In 1836, he presented a report to the Association regarding mineral and thermal waters. In 1837, he traveled to the United States, gathering materials for papers on the thermal springs and geology of North America, which he presented in 1838 before the Ashmolean Society and the British Association. In 1856, he became president of the latter organization at its meeting in Cheltenham. In 1841, Daubeny published his Lectures on Agriculture; in 1857, his Lectures on Roman Husbandry; in 1863, Climate: an inquiry into the causes of its differences and into its influence on Vegetable Life; and in 1865, an Essay on the Trees and Shrubs of the Ancients, along with a Catalogue of the Trees and Shrubs indigenous to Greece and Italy. His last literary work was the collection of his Miscellanies, published in two volumes in 1867. Throughout all his endeavors, Daubeny was driven by a practical spirit and a desire to advance knowledge, and his personal influence on his contemporaries matched the high quality of his various literary works. He passed away in Oxford on December 12, 1867.

See Obituary by John Phillips in Proceedings of Ashmolean Soc., 1868.

See Obituary by John Phillips in Proceedings of Ashmolean Soc., 1868.


DAUBIGNY, CHARLES FRANÇOIS (1817-1878), French landscape painter, allied in several ways with the Barbizon School, was born in Paris, on the 15th of February 1817, but spent much time as a child at Valmondois, a village on the Oise to the north-west of Paris. Daubigny was the son of an artist, and most of his family were painters. He began to paint very early in life, and at the age of seventeen he took a studio of his own. Within twelve months he had saved enough to go to Italy, where he studied and painted for nearly two years; he then returned to Paris, not to leave it again until, in 1860, he took a house at Auvers on the Oise. By 1837 Daubigny had become famous as a river and landscape painter, although he had been devoting himself as well to drawing in black-and-white, to etching, wood engraving, and lithography. In 1855 his picture, “Lock at Optevoz,” now in the Louvre, was purchased by the state; four years later Daubigny was created knight of the Legion of Honour, and in 1874 he was promoted to be an officer. In 1866, at the invitation of Lord, then Mr Leighton and others, he visited London, where, however, he was hurt by his now famous “Moonlight” being badly hung in the Old Royal Academy. But the personal encouragement of his admirers in England made up for the disappointment, and the sale of his picture to a Royal Academician greatly pleased him. In 1870-1871 he again visited London, and subsequently Holland, where he painted a number of river scenes with windmills. In 1874, having returned to Paris, he fell ill, and from that time until he died (on the 19th of February 1878) his work won less distinction than before. In 1904 the municipality of Auvers-sur-Oise decided to erect a bronze monument to Daubigny’s memory.

DAUBIGNY, CHARLES FRANÇOIS (1817-1878), French landscape painter, associated in various ways with the Barbizon School, was born in Paris on February 15, 1817, but spent a lot of time as a child in Valmondois, a village north-west of Paris along the Oise River. Daubigny was the son of an artist, and most of his family were painters. He started painting very young, and by the age of seventeen, he had his own studio. Within a year, he saved enough money to travel to Italy, where he studied and painted for almost two years; he then returned to Paris, not leaving again until 1860 when he moved to a house in Auvers on the Oise. By 1837, Daubigny gained fame as a river and landscape painter, although he was also deeply involved in black-and-white drawing, etching, wood engraving, and lithography. In 1855, his painting “Lock at Optevoz,” now in the Louvre, was purchased by the state; four years later, Daubigny was made a knight of the Legion of Honour, and in 1874 he was promoted to officer. In 1866, at the invitation of Lord Leighton and others, he visited London, where he was disappointed when his now-famous painting “Moonlight” was poorly displayed at the Old Royal Academy. However, the personal support from his admirers in England made up for this setback, and he was delighted when one of his paintings sold to a Royal Academician. In 1870-1871, he visited London again, and then Holland, where he painted several river scenes featuring windmills. After returning to Paris in 1874, he became ill, and his work received less recognition until his death on February 19, 1878. In 1904, the municipality of Auvers-sur-Oise decided to erect a bronze monument in memory of Daubigny.

Daubigny’s finest pictures were painted between 1864 and 1874, and these for the most part consist of carefully completed landscapes with trees, river and a few ducks. It has curiously been said, yet with some appearance of truth, that when Daubigny liked his pictures himself he added another duck or two, so that the number of ducks often indicates greater or less artistic quality in his pictures. One of his sayings was, “The best pictures do not sell,” as he frequently found his finest achievements little understood. Yet although during the latter part of his life he was considered a highly successful painter, the money value of his pictures since his death has increased nearly tenfold. Daubigny is chiefly preferred in his riverside pictures, of which he painted a great number, but although there are two large landscapes by Daubigny in the Louvre, neither is a river view. They are for that reason not so typical as many of his smaller Oise and Seine pictures.

Daubigny’s best works were painted between 1864 and 1874, mainly featuring carefully crafted landscapes with trees, a river, and a few ducks. It’s been said, somewhat truthfully, that when Daubigny was pleased with his paintings, he would add an extra duck or two, so the number of ducks often reflects the artistic quality of his work. One of his quotes was, “The best pictures don’t sell,” as he often found his greatest works to be poorly understood. However, although he was seen as a highly successful painter in the later part of his life, the monetary value of his paintings has increased nearly tenfold since his death. Daubigny is especially favored for his riverside scenes, of which he painted many, but even though there are two large landscapes by Daubigny in the Louvre, neither features a river view. This makes them less typical compared to many of his smaller Oise and Seine paintings.

The works of Daubigny are, like Corot’s, to be found in many modern collections. His most ambitious canvases are: “Springtime” (1857), in the Louvre; “Borde de la Cure, Morvan” (1864); “Villerville sur Mer” (1864); “Moonlight” (1865); “Andrésy sur Oise” (1868); and “Return of the Flock—Moonlight” (1878).

The works of Daubigny can be found in many modern collections, just like Corot's. His most ambitious paintings are: “Springtime” (1857), in the Louvre; “Borde de la Cure, Morvan” (1864); “Villerville sur Mer” (1864); “Moonlight” (1865); “Andrésy sur Oise” (1868); and “Return of the Flock—Moonlight” (1878).

His followers and pupils were his son Karl (who sometimes painted so well that his works are occasionally mistaken for those of his father, though in few cases do they equal his father’s mastery), Oudinot, Delpy and Damoye.

His followers and students included his son Karl (who sometimes painted so well that his works are occasionally mistaken for his father’s, though in most cases, they don’t match his father’s skill), Oudinot, Delpy, and Damoye.

See Fred Henriet, C. Daubigny et son œuvre (Paris, 1878); D. Croal Thomson, The Barbizon School of Painters (London, 1890); J. W. Mollett, Daubigny (London, 1890); J. Claretie, Peintres et sculpteurs contemporains: Daubigny (Paris, 1882); Albert Wolff, La Capitale de l’art: Ch. François Daubigny (Paris, 1881).

See Fred Henriet, C. Daubigny et son œuvre (Paris, 1878); D. Croal Thomson, The Barbizon School of Painters (London, 1890); J. W. Mollett, Daubigny (London, 1890); J. Claretie, Peintres et sculpteurs contemporains: Daubigny (Paris, 1882); Albert Wolff, La Capitale de l’art: Ch. François Daubigny (Paris, 1881).

(D. C. T.)

DAUBRÉE, GABRIEL AUGUSTE (1814-1896), French geologist, was born at Metz, on the 25th of June 1814, and educated at the École Polytechnique in Paris. At the age of twenty he had qualified as a mining engineer, and in 1838 he was appointed to take charge of the mines in the Bas-Rhin (Alsace), and subsequently to be professor of mineralogy and geology at the Faculty of Sciences, Strassburg. In 1859 he became engineer in chief of mines, and in 1861 he was appointed professor of geology at the museum of natural history in Paris and was also elected member of the Academy of Sciences. In the following year he became professor of mineralogy at the École des Mines, and in 1872 director of that school. In 1880 the Geological Society of London awarded to him the Wollaston medal. His published researches date from 1841, when the origin of certain tin minerals attracted his attention; he subsequently discussed the formation of bog-iron ore, and worked out in detail the geology of the Bas-Rhin (1852). From 1857 to 1861, while engaged in engineering works connected with the springs of Plombières, he made a series of interesting observations on thermal waters and their influence on the Roman masonry through which they made their exit. He was, however, especially distinguished for his long-continued and often dangerous experiments on the artificial production of minerals and rocks. He likewise discussed the permeability of rocks by water, and the effects of such infiltration in producing volcanic phenomena; he dealt with the subject of metamorphism, with the deformations of the earth’s crust, with earthquakes, and with the composition and classification of meteorites. He died in Paris on the 29th of May 1896.

DAUBRÉE, GABRIEL AUGUSTE (1814-1896), French geologist, was born in Metz on June 25, 1814, and studied at the École Polytechnique in Paris. By the age of twenty, he had become a qualified mining engineer, and in 1838, he was appointed to oversee the mines in the Bas-Rhin (Alsace). He later became a professor of mineralogy and geology at the Faculty of Sciences in Strasbourg. In 1859, he was named chief engineer of mines, and in 1861, he was appointed professor of geology at the Museum of Natural History in Paris and was elected to the Academy of Sciences. The following year, he became a professor of mineralogy at the École des Mines, and in 1872, he became the director of that school. In 1880, the Geological Society of London awarded him the Wollaston Medal. His published research began in 1841 when he became interested in the origin of certain tin minerals; he later examined the formation of bog-iron ore and extensively studied the geology of the Bas-Rhin (1852). From 1857 to 1861, while working on engineering projects related to the springs of Plombières, he made a series of fascinating observations on thermal waters and their impact on the Roman masonry through which they flowed. He was particularly known for his long-term and often risky experiments on the artificial production of minerals and rocks. He also explored the permeability of rocks by water and the effects of such infiltration in relation to volcanic phenomena; he addressed the topics of metamorphism, deformation of the earth’s crust, earthquakes, and the composition and classification of meteorites. He passed away in Paris on May 29, 1896.

His publications were: Études et expériences synthétiques sur le métamorphisme et sur la formation des roches cristallines (1860); Études synthétiques de géologie expérimentale (1879); Les Eaux souterraines à l’époque actuelle (2 vols., 1887); Le Eaux souterraines aux époques anciennes (1887).

His publications were: Studies and Synthetic Experiments on Metamorphism and the Formation of Crystalline Rocks (1860); Synthetic Studies of Experimental Geology (1879); Groundwater in the Present Day (2 vols., 1887); Groundwater in Ancient Times (1887).

848

848


DAUDET, ALPHONSE (1840-1897), French novelist, was born at Nîmes on the 13th of May 1840. His family, on both sides, belonged to the bourgeoisie. The father, Vincent Daudet, was a silk manufacturer—a man dogged through life by misfortune and failure. The lad, amid much truancy, had but a depressing boyhood. In 1856 he left Lyons, where his schooldays had been mainly spent, and began life as an usher at Alais, in the south. The position proved to be intolerable. As Dickens declared that all through his prosperous career he was haunted in dreams by the miseries of his apprenticeship to the blacking business, so Daudet says that for months after leaving Alais he would wake with horror thinking he was still among his unruly pupils. On the 1st of November 1857 he abandoned teaching, and took refuge with his brother Ernest, only some three years his senior, who was trying, “and thereto soberly,” to make a living as a journalist in Paris. Alphonse betook himself to his pen likewise,—wrote poems, shortly collected into a small volume Les Amoureuses (1858), which met with a fair reception,—obtained employment on the Figaro, then under Cartier de Villemessant’s energetic editorship, wrote two or three plays, and began to be recognized, among those interested in literature, as possessing individuality and promise. Morny, the emperor’s all-powerful minister, appointed him to be one of his secretaries,—a post which he held till Morny’s death in 1865,—and showed him no small kindness. He had put his foot on the road to fortune.

DAUDET, ALPHONSE (1840-1897), French novelist, was born in Nîmes on May 13, 1840. His family, on both sides, came from the middle class. His father, Vincent Daudet, was a silk manufacturer—a man plagued by misfortune and failure throughout his life. The boy, often skipping school, had a pretty tough childhood. In 1856, he left Lyons, where he had spent most of his school years, and started working as an usher in Alais, in the south. The job turned out to be unbearable. Just like Dickens noted that his dreams were haunted by the struggles of his apprenticeship in the blacking business, Daudet said that for months after leaving Alais, he would wake up in a panic thinking he was still among his unruly students. On November 1, 1857, he quit teaching and sought refuge with his brother Ernest, who was only a few years older and was trying earnestly to make a living as a journalist in Paris. Alphonse also took up writing—he penned poems that were soon compiled into a small collection titled Les Amoureuses (1858), which received a decent response—found work with the Figaro, then under the energetic editorship of Cartier de Villemessant, wrote a couple of plays, and began to gain recognition among literary circles for his distinct style and potential. Morny, the emperor’s powerful minister, appointed him as one of his secretaries—a position he held until Morny’s death in 1865—and showed him a good deal of kindness. He was on the path to success.

In 1866 appeared Lettres de mon moulin, which won the attention of many readers. The first of his longer books, Le petit chose (1868), did not, however, produce any very popular sensation. It is, in its main feature, the story of his own earlier years told with much grace and pathos. The year 1872 produced the famous Aventures prodigieuses de Tartarin de Tarascon, and the three-act piece L’Arlésienne. But Fromont jeune et Risler aîné (1874) at once took the world by storm. It struck a note, not new certainly in English literature, but comparatively new in French. Here was a writer who possessed the gift of laughter and tears, a writer not only sensible to pathos and sorrow, but also to moral beauty. He could create too. His characters were real and also typical; the ratés, the men who in life’s battle had flashed in the pan, were touched with a master hand. The book was alive. It gave the illusion of a real world. Jack, the story of an illegitimate child, a martyr to his mother’s selfishness, which followed in 1876, served only to deepen the same impression. Henceforward his career was that of a very successful man of letters,—publishing novel on novel, Le Nabab (1877), Les Rois en exil (1879), Numa Roumestan (1881), Sapho (1884), L’Immortel (1888),—and writing for the stage at frequent intervals,—giving to the world his reminiscences in Trente ans de Paris (1887), and Souvenirs d’un homme de lettres (1888). These, with the three Tartarins,—Tartarin the mighty hunter, Tartarin the mountaineer, Tartarin the colonist,—and the admirable short stories, written for the most part before he had acquired fame and fortune, constitute his life work.

In 1866, Lettres de mon moulin was released and captured the attention of many readers. However, his first longer book, Le petit chose (1868), didn’t create a huge sensation. It mainly tells the story of his earlier years with much grace and emotion. In 1872, he published the famous Aventures prodigieuses de Tartarin de Tarascon and the three-act play L’Arlésienne. But Fromont jeune et Risler aîné (1874) instantly captivated the public. It struck a chord, not new in English literature but relatively fresh in French. Here was a writer with the ability to evoke both laughter and tears, someone who was not only sensitive to pathos and sorrow but also to moral beauty. He also had a talent for creating. His characters felt real and representative; the ratés, those who had briefly shone in life’s struggles, were portrayed with a masterful touch. The book was lively and created the illusion of a real world. Jack, the story of an illegitimate child suffering from his mother’s selfishness, which followed in 1876, only reinforced this impression. From then on, his career blossomed as a highly successful writer, publishing novel after novel, including Le Nabab (1877), Les Rois en exil (1879), Numa Roumestan (1881), Sapho (1884), and L’Immortel (1888)—and frequently writing for the stage. He also shared his memories in Trente ans de Paris (1887) and Souvenirs d’un homme de lettres (1888). These, along with the three Tartarins—Tartarin the mighty hunter, Tartarin the mountaineer, Tartarin the colonist—and the excellent short stories mostly written before he became famous and wealthy, make up his life’s work.

Though Daudet defended himself from the charge of imitating Dickens, it is difficult altogether to believe that so many similarities of spirit and manner were quite unsought. What, however, was purely his own was his style. It is a style that may rightly be called “impressionist,” full of light and colour, not descriptive after the old fashion, but flashing its intended effect by a masterly juxtaposition of words that are like pigments. Nor does it convey, like the style of the Goncourts, for example, a constant feeling of effort. It is full of felicity and charm,—un charmeur Zola has called him. An intimate friend of Edmond de Goncourt (who died in his house), of Flaubert, of Zola, Daudet belonged essentially to the naturalist school of fiction. His own experiences, his surroundings, the men with whom he had been brought into contact, various persons who had played a part, more or less public, in Paris life—all passed into his art. But he vivified the material supplied by his memory. His world has the great gift of life. L’Immortel is a bitter attack on the French Academy, to which august body Daudet never belonged.

Though Daudet defended himself against the accusation of copying Dickens, it’s hard to believe that so many similarities in spirit and style were entirely unintentional. However, what was uniquely his own was his writing style. It can rightfully be called “impressionist,” filled with light and color, not descriptive in the old way, but delivering its intended impact through a masterful arrangement of words that act like pigments. Unlike the style of the Goncourts, it doesn’t convey a constant sense of effort. It is full of beauty and charm — un charmeur as Zola called him. A close friend of Edmond de Goncourt (who died in his home), Flaubert, and Zola, Daudet was fundamentally part of the naturalist school of fiction. His own experiences, his environment, the people he interacted with, and various figures who played more or less public roles in Paris life all influenced his art. However, he brought the material from his memories to life. His world possesses the great gift of vibrancy. L’Immortel is a harsh critique of the French Academy, which esteemed group Daudet was never part of.

Daudet wrote some charming stories for children, among which may be mentioned La Belle Nivernaise, the story of an old boat and her crew. His married life—he married in 1867 Julia Allard—seems to have been singularly happy. There was perfect intellectual harmony, and Madame Daudet herself possessed much of his literary gift; she is known by her Impressions de nature et d’art (1879), L’Enfance d’une Parisienne (1883), and by some literary studies written under the pseudonym of Karl Steen. In his later years Daudet suffered from insomnia, failure of health and consequent use of chloral. He died in Paris on the 17th of December 1897.

Daudet wrote some delightful stories for kids, including La Belle Nivernaise, about an old boat and her crew. His married life—he wed Julia Allard in 1867—appears to have been notably happy. They shared perfect intellectual harmony, and Madame Daudet had much of his literary talent; she is known for her works Impressions de nature et d’art (1879), L’Enfance d’une Parisienne (1883), and some literary studies written under the pen name Karl Steen. In his later years, Daudet struggled with insomnia, health issues, and reliance on chloral. He passed away in Paris on December 17, 1897.

The story of Daudet’s earlier years is told in his brother Ernest Daudet’s Mon frère et moi. There is a good deal of autobiographical detail in Daudet’s Trente ans de Paris and Souvenirs d’un homme de lettres, and also scattered in his other books. The references to him in the Journal des Goncourt are numerous. See also L. A. Daudet, Alphonse Daudet (1898), and biographical and critical essays by R. H. Sherard (1894); by A. Gerstmann (1883); by B. Diederich (1900); by A. Hermant (1903), and a bibliography by J. Brivois (1895); also The Works of Alphonse Daudet, translated by L. Ensor, H. Frith, E. Bartow (1902, etc.). Criticism of Daudet is also to be found in F. Brunetière, Le Roman naturaliste (new ed., 1897); J. Lemaître, Les Contemporains (vols. ii. and iv.); G. Pellissier, Le Mouvement littéraire au XIXe siècle (1890); A. Symons, Studies in Prose and Verse (1904).

The story of Daudet's early years is recounted in his brother Ernest Daudet's Mon frère et moi. There are plenty of autobiographical details in Daudet's Trente ans de Paris and Souvenirs d’un homme de lettres, as well as spread throughout his other works. He is referenced many times in the Journal des Goncourt. Also, check out L. A. Daudet's Alphonse Daudet (1898) and biographical and critical essays by R. H. Sherard (1894), A. Gerstmann (1883), B. Diederich (1900), A. Hermant (1903), along with a bibliography by J. Brivois (1895). Additionally, see The Works of Alphonse Daudet, translated by L. Ensor, H. Frith, and E. Bartow (1902, etc.). Criticism of Daudet can also be found in F. Brunetière's Le Roman naturaliste (new ed., 1897), J. Lemaître's Les Contemporains (vols. ii. and iv.), G. Pellissier's Le Mouvement littéraire au XIXe siècle (1890), and A. Symons' Studies in Prose and Verse (1904).

(F. T. M.)

DAULATABAD, a hill-fortress in Hyderabad state, India, about 10 m. N.W. of the city of Aurangabad. The former city of Daulatabad (Deogiri) has shrunk into a mere village, though to its earlier greatness witness is still borne by its magnificent fortress, and by remains of public buildings noble even in their decay. The fortress stands on a conical rock crowning a hill that rises almost perpendicularly from the plain to a height of some 600 ft. The outer wall, 2¾ m. in circumference, once enclosed the ancient city of Deogiri (Devagiri), and between this and the base of the upper fort are three lines of defences. The fort is a place of extraordinary strength. The only means of access to the summit is afforded by a narrow bridge, with passage for not more than two men abreast, and a long gallery, excavated in the rock, which has for the most part a very gradual upward slope, but about midway is intercepted by a steep stair, the top of which is covered by a grating destined in time of war to form the hearth of a huge fire kept burning by the garrison above. Besides the fortifications Daulatabad contains several notable monuments, of which the chief are the Chand Minar and the Chini Mahal. The Chand Minar, considered one of the most remarkable specimens of Mahommedan architecture in southern India, is a tower 210 ft. high and 70 ft. in circumference at the base, and was originally covered with beautiful Persian glazed tiles. It was erected in 1445 by Ala-ud-din Bahmani to commemorate his capture of the fort. The Chini Mahal, or China Palace, is the ruin of a building once of great beauty. In it Abul Hasan, the last of the Kutb Shahi kings of Golconda, was imprisoned by Aurangzeb in 1687.

DAULATABAD, is a hill fortress in the Hyderabad state of India, located about 10 miles northwest of the city of Aurangabad. The former city of Daulatabad (Deogiri) has reduced to a small village, yet its magnificent fortress and the remains of its once grand public buildings still testify to its past greatness. The fortress is situated on a conical rock at the top of a hill that rises almost straight up from the plain to about 600 feet high. The outer wall, which has a circumference of 2¾ miles, once enclosed the ancient city of Deogiri (Devagiri), and between this wall and the base of the upper fort are three lines of defenses. The fort is exceptionally strong. The only way to access the summit is via a narrow bridge that allows passage for only two people side by side, and a long gallery carved in the rock, which mostly has a gentle upward slope. However, about halfway up, there is a steep staircase, the top of which is protected by a grating meant to hold a large fire maintained by the garrison above during wartime. In addition to the fortifications, Daulatabad features several notable monuments, the most prominent being the Chand Minar and the Chini Mahal. The Chand Minar, regarded as one of the most remarkable examples of Islamic architecture in southern India, is a tower standing 210 feet tall and 70 feet in circumference at the base, originally adorned with beautiful Persian glazed tiles. It was built in 1445 by Ala-ud-din Bahmani to celebrate his capture of the fort. The Chini Mahal, or China Palace, is the ruin of a building that was once very beautiful. Abul Hasan, the last of the Kutb Shahi kings of Golconda, was imprisoned there by Aurangzeb in 1687.

Deogiri is said to have been founded c. A.D. 1187 by Bhillama I. the prince who renounced his allegiance to the Chalukyas and established the power of the Yadava dynasty in the west. In 1294 the fort was captured by Ala-ud-din Khilji, and the rajas, so powerful that they were held by the Mussulmans at Delhi to be the rulers of all the Deccan, were reduced to pay tribute. The tribute falling into arrear, Deogiri was again occupied by the Mahommedans under Malik Kafur, in 1307 and 1310, and in 1318 the last raja, Harpal, was flayed alive. Deogiri now became an important base for the operations of the Mussulman conquering expeditions southwards, and in 1339 Mahommed ben Tughlak Shah determined to make it his capital, changed its name to Daulatabad (“Abode of Prosperity”), and made arrangements for transferring to it the whole population of Delhi. The project was interrupted by troubles which summoned him to the north; during his absence the Mussulman governors of the Deccan revolted; and Daulatabad itself fell into the hands of Zafar Khan, the governor of Gulbarga. It remained in the hands of the Bahmanis till 1526, when it was taken by the Nizam Shahis. It was captured by the emperor Akbar, but in 1595 it again surrendered to Ahmad Nizam Shah of Ahmednagar, on the fall of whose dynasty in 1607 it passed into the hands of the usurper, the Nizam Shahi minister Malik Amber, originally an Abyssinian slave, who was the founder of Kharki (the present Aurangabad). 849 His successors held it until their overthrow by Shah Jahan, the Mogul emperor, in 1633; after which it remained in the possession of the Delhi emperors until, after the death of Aurangzeb, it fell to the first nizam of Hyderabad. Its glory, however, had already decayed owing to the removal of the seat of government by the emperors to Aurangabad.

Deogiri is said to have been founded around A.D. 1187 by Bhillama I, the prince who broke away from the Chalukyas and established the Yadava dynasty's power in the west. In 1294, the fort was taken by Ala-ud-din Khilji, and the rajas, so powerful that they were considered the rulers of the entire Deccan by the Muslims in Delhi, were forced to pay tribute. When the tribute fell behind, Deogiri was once again occupied by the Muslims under Malik Kafur in 1307 and 1310, and in 1318 the last raja, Harpal, was executed in a brutal manner. Deogiri then became an important base for the Muslim conquests heading south, and in 1339, Mahommed ben Tughlak Shah decided to make it his capital, renaming it Daulatabad (“Abode of Prosperity”), and planned to move the entire population of Delhi there. However, this plan was disrupted by issues that called him back to the north; during his absence, the Muslim governors of the Deccan revolted, and Daulatabad fell into the hands of Zafar Khan, the governor of Gulbarga. It remained with the Bahmanis until 1526, when it was taken by the Nizam Shahis. It was captured by Emperor Akbar, but in 1595, it was handed over to Ahmad Nizam Shah of Ahmednagar, and after the fall of his dynasty in 1607, it fell into the hands of Malik Amber, a usurper and former Abyssinian slave, who founded Kharki (the present Aurangabad). 849 His successors controlled it until Shah Jahan, the Mughal emperor, overthrew them in 1633; after that, it remained with the Delhi emperors until, following Aurangzeb's death, it went to the first nizam of Hyderabad. However, its glory had already faded due to the emperor's decision to move the seat of government to Aurangabad.


DAUMIER, HONORÉ (1808-1879), French caricaturist and painter, was born at Marseilles. He showed in his earliest youth an irresistible inclination towards the artistic profession, which his father vainly tried to check by placing him first with a huissier, and subsequently with a bookseller. Having mastered the technique of lithography, Daumier started his artistic career by producing plates for music publishers, and illustrations for advertisements; these were followed by anonymous work for publishers, in which he followed the style of Charlet and displayed considerable enthusiasm for the Napoleonic legend. When, in the reign of Louis Philippe, Philipon launched the comic journal, La Caricature, Daumier joined its staff, which included such powerful artists as Devéria, Raffet and Grandville, and started upon his pictorial campaign of scathing satire upon the foibles of the bourgeoisie, the corruption of the law and the incompetence of a blundering government. His caricature of the king as “Gargantua” led to Daumier’s imprisonment for six months at Ste Pélagie in 1832. The publication of La Caricature was discontinued soon after, but Philipon provided a new field for Daumier’s activity when he founded the Charivari. For this journal Daumier produced his famous social caricatures, in which bourgeois society is held up to ridicule in the figure of Robert Macaire, the hero of a then popular melodrama. Another series, “L’histoire ancienne,” was directed against the pseudo-classicism which held the art of the period in fetters. In 1848 Daumier embarked again on his political campaign, still in the service of Charivari, which he left in 1860 and rejoined in 1864. In spite of his prodigious activity in the field of caricature—the list of Daumier’s lithographed plates compiled in 1904 numbers no fewer than 3958—he found time for flight in the higher sphere of painting. Except for the searching truthfulness of his vision and the powerful directness of his brushwork, it would be difficult to recognize the creator of Robert Macaire, of Les Bas bleus, Les Bohémiens de Paris, and the Masques, in the paintings of “Christ and His Apostles” at the Ryks Museum in Amsterdam, or in his “Good Samaritan,” “Don Quixote and Sancho Panza,” “Christ Mocked,” or even in the sketches in the Ionides Collection at South Kensington. But as a painter, Daumier, one of the pioneers of naturalism, was before his time, and did not meet with success until in 1878, a year before his death, when M. Durand-Ruel collected his works for exhibition at his galleries and demonstrated the full range of the genius of the man who has been well called the Michelangelo of caricature. At the time of this exhibition Daumier, totally blind, was living in a cottage at Valmondois, which was placed at his disposal by Corot, and where he breathed his last in 1879. An important exhibition of his works was held at the École des Beaux-Arts in 1900.

DAUMIER, HONORÉ (1808-1879), a French caricaturist and painter, was born in Marseille. From a young age, he had a strong desire to pursue the arts, a passion his father unsuccessfully tried to suppress by first sending him to work for a court clerk and later for a bookseller. After mastering lithography, Daumier began his artistic career by creating prints for music publishers and illustrations for advertisements; this work was followed by anonymous pieces for publishers, where he imitated Charlet’s style and showed a keen interest in the Napoleonic legend. When Philipon launched the comic journal La Caricature during Louis Philippe's reign, Daumier joined its team, which included influential artists like Devéria, Raffet, and Grandville, and began his campaign of sharp satire targeting the shortcomings of the bourgeoisie, the corruption of the law, and the failures of a careless government. His caricature of the king as “Gargantua” resulted in six months of imprisonment at Ste Pélagie in 1832. Following this, La Caricature ceased publication, but Philipon opened a new avenue for Daumier with the founding of Charivari. For this journal, Daumier created his well-known social caricatures, mocking bourgeois society through the character of Robert Macaire, a figure from a popular melodrama of the time. Another series, “L’histoire ancienne,” criticized the pseudo-classicism that restricted the art of the era. In 1848, Daumier resumed his political satire in Charivari, which he left in 1860 but rejoined in 1864. Despite his extensive work in caricature—his lithographed plate list totaled 3,958 as of 1904—he also found time to explore the realm of painting. Although it would be hard to connect the creator of Robert Macaire, Les Bas bleus, Les Bohémiens de Paris, and Masques with his paintings like “Christ and His Apostles” at the Ryks Museum in Amsterdam or “Good Samaritan,” “Don Quixote and Sancho Panza,” “Christ Mocked,” or even the sketches in the Ionides Collection at South Kensington, as a painter, Daumier was a forerunner of naturalism and did not gain recognition until 1878, a year before his death, when M. Durand-Ruel showcased his works in an exhibition that highlighted the full extent of his genius, often referred to as the Michelangelo of caricature. At the time of this exhibition, Daumier was completely blind and living in a cottage in Valmondois provided by Corot, where he passed away in 1879. A significant exhibition of his works took place at the École des Beaux-Arts in 1900.

His life and art were made the subject of an important volume by Arséne Alexandre in 1888; see also Gustave Geffroy, Daumier (Paris, Libraire de l’Art), and Henri Frantz and Octave Uzanne, Daumier and Gavarni (London, The Studio, 1904), with a large selection of the artist’s work.

His life and art were the focus of an important book by Arséne Alexandre in 1888; also check out Gustave Geffroy, Daumier (Paris, Libraire de l’Art), and Henri Frantz and Octave Uzanne, Daumier and Gavarni (London, The Studio, 1904), which includes a large selection of the artist’s work.


DAUN (DHAUN), LEOPOLD JOSEF, Count Von (1705-1766), prince of Thiano, Austrian field marshal, was born at Vienna on the 24th of September 1705. He was intended for the church, but his natural inclination for the army, in which his father and grandfather had been distinguished generals, proved irresistible. In 1718 he served in the campaign in Sicily, in his father’s regiment. He had already risen to the rank of colonel when he saw further active service in Italy and on the Rhine in the War of the Polish Succession (1734-35). He continued to add to his distinctions in the war against the Turks (1737-39), in which he attained the rank of a general officer. In the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-42), Daun, already a lieutenant field marshal in rank, distinguished himself by the careful leadership which was afterwards his greatest military quality. He was present at Chotusitz and Prague, and led the advanced guard of Khevenhüller’s army in the victorious Danube campaign of 1743. Field Marshal Traun, who succeeded Khevenhüller in 1744, thought equally highly of Daun, and entrusted him with the rearguard of the Austrian army when it escaped from the French to attack Frederick the Great. He held important commands in the battles of Hohenfriedberg and Soor, and in the same year (1745) was promoted to the rank of Feldzeugmeister. After this he served in the Low Countries, and was present at the battle of Val. He was highly valued by Maria Theresa, who made him commandant of Vienna and a knight of the Golden Fleece, and in 1754 he was elevated to the rank of field marshal.

DAUN (DHAUN), LEOPOLD JOSEF, Count Von (1705-1766), prince of Thiano, Austrian field marshal, was born in Vienna on September 24, 1705. He was initially meant for the clergy, but his natural inclination toward the military, where his father and grandfather had both been notable generals, was too strong to resist. In 1718, he participated in the campaign in Sicily with his father’s regiment. By that time, he had already risen to the rank of colonel when he saw further active service in Italy and on the Rhine during the War of the Polish Succession (1734-35). He continued to earn distinctions in the war against the Turks (1737-39), where he achieved the rank of general officer. During the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-42), Daun, who was already a lieutenant field marshal, distinguished himself through his careful leadership, which would later become his greatest military strength. He participated in the battles of Chotusitz and Prague, and led the advanced guard of Khevenhüller’s army in the successful Danube campaign of 1743. Field Marshal Traun, who took over from Khevenhüller in 1744, held Daun in high regard and assigned him the rearguard of the Austrian army as it retreated from the French to confront Frederick the Great. He held significant commands during the battles of Hohenfriedberg and Soor, and in that same year (1745), he was promoted to the rank of Feldzeugmeister. After that, he served in the Low Countries and participated in the battle of Val. He was highly respected by Maria Theresa, who made him the commandant of Vienna and a knight of the Golden Fleece, and in 1754, he was promoted to field marshal.

During the interval of peace that preceded the Seven Years’ War he was engaged in carrying out an elaborate scheme for the reorganization of the Austrian army; and it was chiefly through his instrumentality that the military academy was established at Wiener-Neustadt in 1751. He was not actively employed in the first campaigns of the war, but in 1757 he was placed at the head of the army which was raised to relieve Prague. On the 18th of June 1757 Daun defeated Frederick for the first time in his career in the desperately fought battle of Kolin (q.v.). In commemoration of this brilliant exploit the queen immediately instituted a military order bearing her name, of which Daun was nominated first grand cross. The union of the relieving army with the forces of Prince Charles at Prague reduced Daun to the position of second in command, and as such he took part in the pursuit of the Prussians and the victory of Breslau. Frederick now reappeared and won the most brilliant victory of the age at Leuthen. Daun was present on that field, but was not held accountable for the disaster, and when Prince Charles resigned his command, Daun was appointed in his place. With the campaign of 1758 began the war of manœuvre in which Daun, if he missed, through over-caution, many opportunities of crushing the Prussians, at least maintained a steady and cool resistance to the fiery strategy of Frederick. In 1758 Major-General Loudon, acting under Daun’s instructions, forced the king to raise the siege of Olmütz, and later in the same year Daun himself surprised Frederick at Hochkirch and inflicted a severe defeat upon him (October 14th). In the following year the war of manœuvre continued, and on the 20th and 21st of November he surrounded the entire corps of General Finck at Maxen, forcing the Prussians to surrender. These successes were counterbalanced in the following year by the defeat of Loudon at Liegnitz, which was attributed to the dilatoriness of Daun, and Daun’s own defeat in the great battle of Torgau (q.v.). In this engagement Daun was so severely wounded that he had to return to Vienna to recruit.

During the peaceful period before the Seven Years’ War, he was busy implementing a detailed plan to reorganize the Austrian army. It was mainly thanks to his efforts that the military academy was established in Wiener-Neustadt in 1751. He wasn’t actively involved in the early campaigns of the war, but in 1757 he was put in charge of the army raised to relieve Prague. On June 18, 1757, Daun defeated Frederick for the first time in the fiercely contested battle of Kolin (q.v.). To honor this remarkable achievement, the queen quickly established a military order named after her, and Daun was appointed the first grand cross. The merging of the relieving army with Prince Charles’ forces at Prague put Daun in the position of second-in-command, and in this role, he participated in the pursuit of the Prussians and the victory at Breslau. Frederick then returned to the scene and achieved one of the most stunning victories of the era at Leuthen. Daun was present at that battle but wasn’t held responsible for the defeat. When Prince Charles stepped down from command, Daun took over. The 1758 campaign marked the beginning of a war of maneuver in which Daun, although he missed several chances to decisively defeat the Prussians due to his cautiousness, at least managed to maintain a steady and calm defense against Frederick’s aggressive strategies. In 1758, Major-General Loudon, acting under Daun’s orders, forced the king to abandon the siege of Olmütz, and later that year, Daun himself surprised Frederick at Hochkirch and delivered a significant defeat (October 14). The next year, the war of maneuver continued, and on November 20 and 21, he encircled General Finck’s entire corps at Maxen, compelling the Prussians to surrender. However, these victories were offset the following year by Loudon’s defeat at Liegnitz, which was blamed on Daun’s sluggishness, and Daun’s own defeat in the major battle of Torgau (q.v.). In this battle, Daun was so badly wounded that he had to return to Vienna to recover.

He continued to command until the end of the war, and afterwards worked with the greatest energy at the reorganization of the imperial forces. In 1762 he had been appointed president of the Hofkriegsrath. He died on the 5th of February 1766. By the order of Maria Theresa a monument to his memory was erected in the church of the Augustinians, with an inscription styling him the “saviour of her states.” In 1888 the 56th regiment of Austrian infantry was named after him. As a general Daun has been reproached for the dilatoriness of his operations, but wariness was not misplaced in opposing a general like Frederick, who was quick and unexpected in his movements beyond all precedent. Less defence perhaps may be made for him on the score of inability to profit by a victory.

He continued to lead until the end of the war and then worked energetically on reorganizing the imperial forces. In 1762, he was appointed president of the Hofkriegsrath. He died on February 5, 1766. By the order of Maria Theresa, a monument was erected in his memory at the church of the Augustinians, with an inscription calling him the “savior of her states.” In 1888, the 56th regiment of Austrian infantry was named after him. As a general, Daun has been criticized for the slowness of his operations, but caution was reasonable when facing a general like Frederick, who was known for his quick and unpredictable movements. He may be less defensible regarding his failure to capitalize on a victory.

See Der deutsche Fabius Cunctator, oder Leben u. Thaten S. E. des H. Leopold Reichsgrafen v. Dhaun K.K.F.M. (Frankfort and Leipzig, 1759-1760), and works dealing with the wars of the period.

See Der deutsche Fabius Cunctator, oder Leben u. Thaten S. E. des H. Leopold Reichsgrafen v. Dhaun K.K.F.M. (Frankfort and Leipzig, 1759-1760), and works dealing with the wars of the period.


DAUNOU, PIERRE CLAUDE FRANÇOIS (1761-1840), French statesman and historian, was born at Boulogne-sur-Mer, and after a brilliant career in the school of the Oratorians there, joined the order in Paris in 1777. He was professor in various seminaries from 1780 till 1787, when he was ordained priest. He was already known in literary circles by several essays and poems, when the revolution opened a wider career. He threw himself with ardour into the struggle for liberty, and refused to be 850 silenced in his advocacy of the civil constitution of the clergy by the offer of high office in the church. Elected to the Convention by Pas-le-Calais, he associated himself with the Girondists, but strongly opposed the death sentence on the king. He took little part in the struggle against the Mountain, but was involved in the overthrow of his friends, and was imprisoned for a year. In December 1794 he returned to the Convention, and was the principal author of the constitution of the year III. It seems to have been due to his Girondist ideas that the Ancients were given the right of convoking the corps législatif outside Paris, an expedient which made possible Napoleon’s coup d’état of the 18th and 19th Brumaire. The creation of the Institute was also due to Daunou, who drew up the plan for its organization. His energy was largely responsible for the suppression of the royalist insurrection of the 13th Vendémiaire, and the important place he occupied at the beginning of the Directory is indicated by the fact that he was elected by twenty-seven departments as member of the Council of Five Hundred, and became its first president. He had himself set the age qualification of the directors at forty, and thus debarred himself as candidate, as he was only thirty-four. The direction of affairs having passed into the hands of Talleyrand and his associates, Daunou turned once more to literature, but in 1798 he was sent to Rome to organize the republic there, and again, almost against his will, he lent his aid to Napoleon in the preparation of the constitution of the year VIII. His attitude towards Napoleon was not lacking in independence, but in this controversy with the pope, the emperor was able again to secure from him the learned treatise Sur la puissance temporelle du Pape (1809). Still he took little part in the new régime, with which at heart he had no sympathy, and turned more and more to literature. At the Restoration he was deprived of the post of archivist of the empire, which he had held from 1807, but from 1819 to 1830 (when he again became archivist of the kingdom) he held the chair of history and ethics at the Collège de France, and his courses were among the most famous of that age of public lectures. During the reign of Louis Philippe he received many honours. In 1839 he was made a peer. He died in 1840.

DAUNOU, PIERRE CLAUDE FRANÇOIS (1761-1840), a French statesman and historian, was born in Boulogne-sur-Mer. After an impressive career at the Oratorian school there, he joined the order in Paris in 1777. He served as a professor in various seminaries from 1780 until 1787, when he was ordained a priest. He was already becoming known in literary circles through several essays and poems when the revolution opened up new opportunities. He passionately engaged in the fight for freedom and refused to be silenced in his support of the civil constitution of the clergy, despite offers of high office within the church. Elected to the Convention by Pas-de-Calais, he aligned himself with the Girondists, yet strongly opposed the death penalty for the king. He didn’t play a significant role in the conflict against the Mountain but was involved in the fall of his friends and ended up imprisoned for a year. In December 1794, he returned to the Convention and became the main author of the constitution of the year III. His Girondist beliefs likely led to the Ancients being granted the right to call together the corps législatif outside Paris, a tactic that facilitated Napoleon’s coup d’état of the 18th and 19th Brumaire. Daunou was also responsible for the creation of the Institute, for which he outlined the organizational plan. His efforts were crucial in quelling the royalist uprising of the 13th Vendémiaire, and his significant role at the beginning of the Directory is highlighted by the fact that he was elected by twenty-seven departments as a member of the Council of Five Hundred and became its first president. He had set the age requirement for the directors at forty, which prevented him from running as he was only thirty-four. As power shifted to Talleyrand and his associates, Daunou returned to literature, but in 1798 he was sent to Rome to help establish the republic there. Reluctantly, he assisted Napoleon in creating the constitution of the year VIII. His relationship with Napoleon was somewhat independent; however, during a dispute with the pope, the emperor managed to obtain from him the scholarly work Sur la puissance temporelle du Pape (1809). Still, he played a minor role in the new regime, which he fundamentally disagreed with, and increasingly focused on literature. During the Restoration, he lost his position as the empire's archivist, a role he had held since 1807. From 1819 until 1830 (when he once again became the archivist of the kingdom), he held the chair of history and ethics at the Collège de France, and his lectures became some of the most renowned of that public speaking era. During Louis Philippe's reign, he received numerous honors, and in 1839 he was made a peer. He died in 1840.

In politics Daunou was a Girondist without combativeness; a confirmed republican, who lent himself always to the policy of conciliation, but whose probity remained unchallenged. He belonged essentially to the centre, and lacked both the genius and the temperament which would secure for him a commanding place in a revolutionary era. As an historian his breadth of view is remarkable for his time; for although thoroughly imbued with the classical spirit of the 18th century, he was able to do justice to the middle ages. His Discours sur l’état des lettres au XIIIe siècle, in the sixteenth volume of the Histoire littéraire de France, is a remarkable contribution to that vast collection, especially as coming from an author so profoundly learned in the ancient classics. Daunou’s lectures at the Collège de France, collected and published after his death, fill twenty volumes (Cours d’études historiques, 1842-1846). They treat principally of the criticism of sources and the proper method of writing history, and occupy an important place in the evolution of the scientific study of history in France. All his works were written in the most elegant style and chaste diction; but apart from his share in the editing of the Historiens de la France, they were mostly in the form of separate articles on literary and historical subjects. Personally Daunou was reserved and somewhat austere, preserving in his habits a strange mixture of bourgeois and monk. His indefatigable work as archivist in the time when Napoleon was transferring so many treasures to Paris is not his least claim to the gratitude of scholars.

In politics, Daunou was a Girondist without being aggressive; a dedicated republican who always supported a conciliatory approach, but whose integrity was never questioned. He essentially belonged to the center and didn't have the brilliance or temperament that would secure him a prominent role in a revolutionary period. As a historian, his broad perspective is notable for his time; even though he was deeply influenced by the classical spirit of the 18th century, he was able to appreciate the Middle Ages. His Discours sur l’état des lettres au XIIIe siècle, found in the sixteenth volume of the Histoire littéraire de France, is a significant addition to that extensive collection, especially from an author so well-versed in ancient classics. Daunou’s lectures at the Collège de France, compiled and published after his death, fill twenty volumes (Cours d’études historiques, 1842-1846). They mainly focus on source criticism and the proper methods of writing history, playing an important role in the development of scientific historical study in France. All his works were written in a very elegant style and refined language; aside from his participation in editing the Historiens de la France, most were in the form of separate articles on literary and historical topics. Daunou was personally reserved and somewhat solemn, maintaining a peculiar blend of bourgeois and monastic habits. His tireless work as an archivist during the time when Napoleon was moving many treasures to Paris is another reason scholars are grateful to him.

See Mignet, Notice historique sur la vie et les travaux de Daunou (Paris, 1843); Taillandier, Documents bibliographiques sur Daunou (Paris, 1847), including a full list of his works; Sainte-Beuve, Daunou in his Portraits Contemporains, t. iii. (unfavourable and somewhat unfair).

See Mignet, Historical Notice on the Life and Work of Daunou (Paris, 1843); Taillandier, Bibliographic Documents on Daunou (Paris, 1847), which includes a complete list of his works; Sainte-Beuve, Daunou in his Contemporary Portraits, vol. iii. (unfavorable and somewhat unjust).


DAUPHIN (Lat. Delphinus), an ancient feudal title in France, borne only by the counts and dauphins of Vienne, the dauphins of Auvergne, and from 1364 by the eldest sons of the kings of France. The origin of this curious title is obscure and has been the subject of much ingenious controversy; but it now seems clear that it was in the first instance a proper name. Among the Norsemen, and in the countries colonized by them, the name Dolphin or Dolfin (dolfr, “a wound”) was fairly common, e.g. in the north of England; thus a Dolfin is mentioned among the tenants-in-chief in Domesday Book, and there was a Dolphin, lord of Carlisle, towards the end of the 11th century. It has thus been conjectured by some that the dauphins of Vienne derived their title from Teutonic sources through Germany. But in the south, too, the name—not necessarily derived from the same root—was not unknown, though exceedingly rare, and was moreover illustrated by two conspicuous figures in the Catholic martyrology: St Delphinus, bishop of Bordeaux from 380 to 404, and St Annemundus, surnamed Dalfinus, bishop of Lyons from c. 650 to 657. Whatever its origin, this name was borne by Guigo, or Guigue IV. (d. 1142), count of Albon and Grenoble, as an additional name, during the lifetime of his father, and was also adopted by his son Guigue V. Beatrice, daughter and heiress of Guigue V., whose second husband was Hugh III., duke of Burgundy, bestowed the name on their son André, to recall his descent from the ancient house of the counts of Albon, and in the charters he is called sometimes Andreas Dalphinus, sometimes Dalphinus simply, but his style is still “count of Albon and Vienne.” His successors Guigue VI. (d. 1270) and John I. (d. 1282) call themselves sometimes Delphinus, sometimes Delphini, the name being obviously treated as a patronymic, and in the latter form it was borne by the sons of the reigning “dauphin.” But even under Guigue VI. foreigners had begun to confuse the name with a title of dignity, an imperial diploma of 1248 describing Guigue as “Guigo Dalphinus Viennensis.”

DAUPHIN (Lat. Delphinus) is an old feudal title in France, held exclusively by the counts and dauphins of Vienne, the dauphins of Auvergne, and from 1364 by the oldest sons of the kings of France. The origin of this unusual title is unclear and has sparked a lot of interesting debate; however, it now seems evident that it was originally a proper name. Among the Norse people, and in the territories they colonized, the name Dolphin or Dolfin (dolfr, meaning "a wound") was quite common, particularly in northern England. For instance, a Dolfin is mentioned among the tenants-in-chief in the Domesday Book, and there was a Dolphin, lord of Carlisle, towards the end of the 11th century. Some have speculated that the dauphins of Vienne got their title from Germanic sources. In the south of France, too, the name—though extremely rare and not necessarily from the same origin—was noted, also highlighted by two notable figures in Catholic martyrology: St. Delphinus, bishop of Bordeaux from 380 to 404, and St. Annemundus, known as Dalfinus, bishop of Lyons from c. 650 to 657. Regardless of its origin, this name was used by Guigo, or Guigue IV. (d. 1142), count of Albon and Grenoble, as an additional name during his father's lifetime and was also adopted by his son Guigue V. Beatrice, the daughter and heiress of Guigue V., who later married Hugh III, duke of Burgundy, passed the name to their son André to highlight his lineage from the ancient house of the counts of Albon. In the charters, he is sometimes referred to as Andreas Dalphinus, sometimes simply as Dalphinus, but he is still titled "count of Albon and Vienne." His successors Guigue VI. (d. 1270) and John I. (d. 1282) sometimes referred to themselves as Delphinus and sometimes as Delphini, treating the name as a patronymic, and in its latter form, it was used by the sons of the reigning "dauphin." However, even during Guigue VI.'s time, outsiders began to mistake the name for a title of nobility, with an imperial diploma from 1248 describing Guigue as “Guigo Dalphinus Viennensis.”

It was not until the third dynasty, founded by the marriage of Anne, heiress of John I., with Humbert, lord of La Tour du Pin, that “dauphin” became definitely established as a title. Humbert not only assumed the name of Delphinus, but styled himself regularly Dauphin of the Viennois (Dalphinus Viennensis), and in a treaty concluded in 1285 between Humbert and Robert, duke of Burgundy, the word delphinatus (Dauphiné) appears for the first time, as a synonym for comitatus (county). In 1349 Humbert II., the last of his race, sold Dauphiné to Charles of Valois, who, when he became king of France in 1364, transferred it to his eldest son. From that time the eldest sons of the kings of France were always either actual or titular dauphins of the Viennois. The “canting arms” of a dolphin, which they quartered with the royal fleurs de lys, were originally assumed by Dauphin, count of Clermont, instead of the arms of Auvergne (the earliest extant example is appended to a deed of 1199), and from him they were borrowed by the counts of the Viennois. Guigue VI. used this device on his secret seal from his accession, the earliest extant example dating from 1237, but, though no specimens have survived, M. Prudhomme thinks it probable that the dolphin was also borne by André Dauphin. It was also assumed by Guigue V., count of Forez (1203-1241), a descendant of Guigue Raymond of the Viennois, count of Forez, in right of his wife Ida Raymonde. It is thus abundantly clear that the name of Dauphin was not assumed from the armorial device, but vice versa.

It wasn't until the third dynasty, which was established by the marriage of Anne, the heiress of John I, to Humbert, lord of La Tour du Pin, that the title "dauphin" was firmly established. Humbert not only took on the name Delphinus but also referred to himself as the Dauphin of the Viennois (Dalphinus Viennensis). In a treaty signed in 1285 between Humbert and Robert, duke of Burgundy, the term delphinatus (Dauphiné) appeared for the first time as a synonym for comitatus (county). In 1349, Humbert II, the last of his lineage, sold Dauphiné to Charles of Valois, who, upon becoming king of France in 1364, passed it to his eldest son. Since then, the eldest sons of the kings of France have always been either actual or titular dauphins of the Viennois. The “canting arms” featuring a dolphin, which they quartered with the royal fleurs de lys, were originally taken on by Dauphin, count of Clermont, in place of the arms of Auvergne (the earliest existing example dates back to a deed from 1199), and the counts of the Viennois later adopted this. Guigue VI used this emblem on his secret seal from the time he became count, with the earliest known example from 1237, but although no examples have survived, M. Prudhomme suggests it’s likely that the dolphin was also used by André Dauphin. Guigue V, count of Forez (1203-1241), a descendant of Guigue Raymond of the Viennois, count of Forez through his wife Ida Raymonde, also adopted this symbol. It's clear that the name Dauphin was not derived from the heraldic device, but rather the other way around.

The eldest son of the French king was sometimes called “the king dauphin” (le roy daulphin), to distinguish him from the dauphin of Auvergne, who was known, since Auvergne became an appanage of the royal house, as “the prince dauphin.” The dauphinate of Auvergne, which is to be distinguished from the county, dates from 1155, when William VII., count of Auvergne, was deposed by his uncle William VIII. “the Old.” William VII. had married a daughter of Guigue IV. Dauphin, after whom their son was named Dauphin (Delphinus). The name continued, as in Viennois, as a patronymic, and was not used as a title until 1281, when Robert II., count of Clermont, in his will, styles himself for the first time Dauphin of Auvergne (Alvernie delphinus) for the portion of the county of Auvergne left to his house. In 1428 Jeanne, heiress of the dauphin Béraud III., married Louis de Bourbon, count of Montpensier (d. 1486), thus bringing the 851 dauphinate into the royal house of France. It was annexed to the crown in 1693.

The eldest son of the French king was sometimes referred to as “the king dauphin” (le roy daulphin) to differentiate him from the dauphin of Auvergne, who was known as “the prince dauphin” since Auvergne became part of the royal family. The dauphinate of Auvergne, which is different from the county, began in 1155 when William VII, count of Auvergne, was overthrown by his uncle William VIII, “the Old.” William VII had married a daughter of Guigue IV, Dauphin, after whom their son was named Dauphin (Delphinus). The name continued, similar to how it was in Viennois, as a family name and wasn’t used as a title until 1281, when Robert II, count of Clermont, in his will, for the first time referred to himself as Dauphin of Auvergne (Alvernie delphinus) for the share of the county of Auvergne that he left to his family. In 1428, Jeanne, the heiress of dauphin Béraud III, married Louis de Bourbon, count of Montpensier (d. 1486), thus bringing the dauphinate into the royal house of France. It was annexed to the crown in 1693.

See A. Prudhomme, “De l’origine et du sens des mots dauphin et dauphiné” in Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, liv. an. 1893 (Paris, 1893).

See A. Prudhomme, “On the Origin and Meaning of the Words Dolphin and Dauphiné” in Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, vol. year 1893 (Paris, 1893).


DAUPHINÉ, one of the old provinces (the name being still in current use in the country) of pre-Revolutionary France, in the south-east portion of France, between Provence and Savoy; since 1790 it forms the departments of the Isère, the Drôme and the Hautes Alpes.

DAUPHINÉ, is one of the old provinces (the name is still used in the country) of pre-Revolutionary France, located in the southeastern part of France, between Provence and Savoy; since 1790, it has been part of the departments of Isère, Drôme, and Hautes Alpes.

After the death of the last king of Burgundy, Rudolf III., in 1032, the territories known later as Dauphiné (as part of his realm) reverted to the far-distant emperor. Much confusion followed, out of which the counts of Albon (between Valence and Vienne) gradually came to the front. The first dynasty ended in 1162 with Guigue V., whose daughter and heiress, Beatrice, carried the possessions of her house to her husband, Hugh III., duke of Burgundy. Their son, André, continued the race, this second dynasty making many territorial acquisitions, among them (by marriage) the Embrunais and the Gapençais in 1232. In 1282 the second dynasty ended in another heiress, Anna, who carried all to her husband, Humbert, lord of La Tour du Pin (between Lyons and Grenoble). The title of the chief of the house was Count (later Dauphin) of the Viennois, not of Dauphiné. (For the origin of the terms Dauphin and Dauphiné see Dauphin.) Humbert II. (1333-1349), grandson of the heiress Anna, was the last independent Dauphin, selling his dominions in 1349 to Charles of Valois, who on his accession to the throne of France as Charles V. bestowed Dauphiné on his eldest son, and the title was borne by all succeeding eldest sons of the kings of France. In 1422 the Diois and the Valentinois, by the will of the last count, passed to the eldest son of Charles VI., and in 1424 were annexed to the Dauphiné. Louis (1440-1461), later Louis XI. of France, was the last Dauphin who occupied a semi-independent position, Dauphiné being annexed to the crown in 1456. The suzerainty of the emperor (who in 1378 had named the Dauphin “Imperial Vicar” within Dauphiné and Provence) gradually died out. In the 16th century the names of the reformer Guillaume Farel (1489-1565) and of the duke of Lesdiguières (1543-1626) are prominent in Dauphiné history. The “States” of Dauphiné (dating from about the middle of the 14th century) were suspended by Louis XIII. in 1628, but their unauthorized meeting (on the 21st of July 1788) in the tennis court (Salle du Jeu de Paume) of the castle of Vizille, near Grenoble, was one of the earliest premonitory signs of the great French Revolution of 1789. It was at Laffrey, near Grenoble, that Napoleon (March 7th, 1815) was first acclaimed by his old soldiers sent to arrest him.

After the death of the last king of Burgundy, Rudolf III, in 1032, the areas later known as Dauphiné, which were part of his kingdom, went back to the distant emperor. This led to a lot of confusion, from which the counts of Albon (located between Valence and Vienne) gradually emerged as prominent figures. The first dynasty ended in 1162 with Guigue V. His daughter and heiress, Beatrice, took her family's lands to her husband, Hugh III, Duke of Burgundy. Their son, André, continued the lineage, and this second dynasty made several territorial gains, including the Embrunais and the Gapençais in 1232 through marriage. In 1282, the second dynasty ended with another heiress, Anna, who passed everything to her husband, Humbert, lord of La Tour du Pin (between Lyons and Grenoble). The head of the house held the title of Count (later Dauphin) of the Viennois, not of Dauphiné. (For the origins of the terms Dauphin and Dauphiné, see Dauphin.) Humbert II (1333-1349), the grandson of heiress Anna, was the last independent Dauphin. In 1349, he sold his territories to Charles of Valois, who, upon becoming King of France as Charles V, granted Dauphiné to his eldest son, a title that was held by all subsequent eldest sons of the kings of France. In 1422, the Diois and the Valentinois were passed to the eldest son of Charles VI by the last count's will and were annexed to Dauphiné in 1424. Louis (1440-1461), later known as Louis XI of France, was the last Dauphin to have a semi-independent role, as Dauphiné was annexed to the crown in 1456. The emperor's suzerainty (who had named the Dauphin “Imperial Vicar” in 1378 for Dauphiné and Provence) gradually faded. In the 16th century, reformer Guillaume Farel (1489-1565) and the Duke of Lesdiguières (1543-1626) were significant figures in the history of Dauphiné. Louis XIII suspended the “States” of Dauphiné, which had been around since the mid-14th century, in 1628, but their unauthorized meeting on July 21, 1788, in the tennis court (Salle du Jeu de Paume) of the castle of Vizille, near Grenoble, was one of the early signs of the forthcoming French Revolution in 1789. It was at Laffrey, near Grenoble, that Napoleon was first welcomed by his old soldiers sent to arrest him on March 7, 1815.

Bibliography.—J. Brun-Durand, Dictionnaire topographique du département de la Drôme (Paris, 1891); Jules Chevalier, Essai historique sur l’église et la ville de Die, Montélimar and Valence (2 vols., 1888 and 1896); W. A. B. Coolidge, H. Duhamel and Félix Perrin, Climbers’ Guide to the Central Alps of the Dauphiny (a revision of a French work by the same, issued at Grenoble in 1887), London, 1892 (new ed. 1905); J. J. Guiffrey, Histoire de la réunion du Dauphiné à la France (Paris, 1868); Joanne, Dauphiné (Paris, 1905); A. Prudhomme, Histoire de Grenoble (Grenoble, 1888); Ib., “De l’origine des mots ‘Dauphin’ et Dauphiné” (article in vol. liv. (1893) of the Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes); A. Rochas, Biographie du Dauphiné (2 vols., Paris, 1856); J. Roman, Dictionnaire topographique (Paris, 1884); Tableau historique (Paris, 2 vols., 1887 and 1890); and Répertoire archéologique du département des Hautes-Alpes (Paris, 1888); J. Roman, Histoire de la ville de Gap (Gap, 1892); A. De Terrebasse, Notice sur les Dauphins de Viennois (Vienne, 1875); J. M. De Valbonnais, Histoire de Dauphiné (2 vols., Geneva, 1722); J. A. Félix Faure, Les Assemblées de Vizille et de Romans, 1788 (Paris, 1887); O. Chenavas, La Révolution de 1788 en Dauphiné (Grenoble, 1888); C. Lory, Description géologique du Dauphiné (Paris, 1860).

References.—J. Brun-Durand, Topographical Dictionary of the Drôme Department (Paris, 1891); Jules Chevalier, Historical Essay on the Church and the City of Die, Montélimar and Valence (2 vols., 1888 and 1896); W. A. B. Coolidge, H. Duhamel, and Félix Perrin, Climbers’ Guide to the Central Alps of the Dauphiny (a revision of a French work by the same authors, published in Grenoble in 1887), London, 1892 (new ed. 1905); J. J. Guiffrey, History of the Reunion of Dauphiné with France (Paris, 1868); Joanne, Dauphiné (Paris, 1905); A. Prudhomme, History of Grenoble (Grenoble, 1888); Ib., “On the Origin of the Words ‘Dauphin’ and ‘Dauphiné’” (article in vol. liv. (1893) of the Library of the School of Chartes); A. Rochas, Biography of Dauphiné (2 vols., Paris, 1856); J. Roman, Topographical Dictionary (Paris, 1884); Historical Overview (Paris, 2 vols., 1887 and 1890); and Archaeological Register of the Hautes-Alpes Department (Paris, 1888); J. Roman, History of the City of Gap (Gap, 1892); A. De Terrebasse, Notice on the Dauphins of Viennois (Vienne, 1875); J. M. De Valbonnais, History of Dauphiné (2 vols., Geneva, 1722); J. A. Félix Faure, The Assemblies of Vizille and Romans, 1788 (Paris, 1887); O. Chenavas, The Revolution of 1788 in Dauphiné (Grenoble, 1888); C. Lory, Geological Description of Dauphiné (Paris, 1860).

(W. A. B. C.)

DAURAT (or Dorat), JEAN (in Lat. Auratus), (1508-1588), French poet and scholar, and member of the Pléiade, was born at Limoges in 1508. His name was originally Dinemandy. He belonged to a noble family, and, after studying at the college of Limoges, came up to Paris to be presented to Francis I., who made him tutor to his pages. He rapidly gained an immense reputation as a classical scholar. As a private tutor in the house of Lazare de Baïf, he had J. A. de Baïf for his pupil. His son, Louis, showed great precocity, and at the age of ten translated into French verse one of his father’s Latin pieces; his poems were published with his father’s. Jean Daurat became the director of the Collège de Coqueret, where he had among his pupils, besides Baïf, Ronsard, Remy, Belleau and Pontus de Tyard. Joachim du Bellay was added by Ronsard to this group; and these five young poets, under the direction of Daurat, formed a society for the reformation of the French language and literature. They increased their number to seven by the initiation of the dramatist Étienne Jodelle, and thereupon they named themselves La Pléiade, in emulation of the seven Greek poets of Alexandria. The election of Daurat as their president proved the weight of his personal influence, and the value his pupils set on the learning to which he introduced them, but as a writer of French verse he is the least important of the seven. Meanwhile he collected around him a sort of Academy, and stimulated the students on all sides to a passionate study of Greek and Latin poetry. He himself wrote incessantly in both those languages, and was styled the Modern Pindar. His influence extended beyond the bounds of his own country, and he was famous as a scholar in England, Italy and Germany. In 1556 he was appointed professor of Greek at the Collège Royale, a post which he continued to hold until, in 1567, he resigned it in favour of his nephew, Nicolas Goulu. Charles IX. gave him the title of poeta regius. His flow of language was the wonder of his time; he is said to have composed more than 15,000 Greek and Latin verses. The best of these he published at Paris in 1586 as J. Aurati Lemovicis poëtae et interpretis regii poëmata. He died at Paris on the 1st of November 1588, having survived all his illustrious pupils of the Pléiade, except Pontus de Tyard. He was a little, restless man, of untiring energy, rustic in manner and appearance. His unequalled personal influence over the most graceful minds of his age gives him an importance in the history of literature for which his own somewhat vapid writings do not fully account.

DAURAT (or Dorat), JEAN (in Latin Goldfish), (1508-1588), was a French poet and scholar, and a member of the Pléiade, born in Limoges in 1508. His original name was Dinemandy. Coming from a noble family, he studied at the college of Limoges before moving to Paris to meet Francis I., who appointed him as tutor to his pages. He quickly became well-known as a classical scholar. As a private tutor in the home of Lazare de Baïf, one of his students was J. A. de Baïf. His son, Louis, showed remarkable talent, and at the age of ten, he translated one of his father's Latin works into French verse; his poems were published alongside his father's. Jean Daurat later became the director of the Collège de Coqueret, where he taught students like Baïf, Ronsard, Remy, Belleau, and Pontus de Tyard. Ronsard later added Joachim du Bellay to this group; these five young poets, under Daurat's guidance, formed a society aimed at reforming the French language and literature. They expanded to seven members with the inclusion of the dramatist Étienne Jodelle and named themselves La Pléiade, inspired by the seven Greek poets of Alexandria. Daurat's election as their president highlighted his significant influence and the appreciation his students had for the knowledge he imparted, but as a French verse writer, he is the least notable among the seven. Meanwhile, he gathered a sort of Academy around him and encouraged students to passionately study Greek and Latin poetry. He himself wrote prolifically in both languages and was known as the Modern Pindar. His influence spread outside of France, earning him recognition as a scholar in England, Italy, and Germany. In 1556, he was appointed professor of Greek at the Collège Royale, a position he held until he resigned in 1567 in favor of his nephew, Nicolas Goulu. Charles IX. honored him with the title of poeta regius. His remarkable command of language amazed his contemporaries; he reportedly composed over 15,000 Greek and Latin verses. The best of these were published in Paris in 1586 as J. Aurati Lemovicis poëtae et interpretis regii poëmata. He died in Paris on November 1, 1588, outliving all his notable students from the Pléiade, except for Pontus de Tyard. He was a small, restless man with boundless energy, and his rustic manner and appearance were notable. His unparalleled personal influence over the finest minds of his time grants him a significant place in the literary history that his own rather bland writings do not entirely justify.

The Œuvres poétiques in the vernacular of Jean Daurat were edited (1875) with biographical notice and bibliography by Ch. Marty-Laveaux in his Pléiade française.

The Œuvres poétiques in the vernacular by Jean Daurat were edited (1875) with a biographical notice and bibliography by Ch. Marty-Laveaux in his Pléiade française.


DAVENANT, CHARLES (1656-1714), English economist, eldest son of Sir William Davenant, the poet, was born in London, and educated at Cheam grammar school and Balliol College, Oxford, but left the university without taking a degree. At the age of nineteen he had composed a tragedy, Circe, which met with some success, but he soon turned his attention to law, and having taken the degree of LL.D., he became a member of Doctors’ Commons. He was member of parliament successively for St Ives, Cornwall, and for Great Bedwyn. He held the post of commissioner of excise from 1683 to 1689, and that of inspector-general of exports and imports from 1705 till his death in 1714. He was also secretary to the commission appointed to treat for the union with Scotland. As an economist, he must be classed as a strong supporter of the mercantile theory, and in his economic pamphlets—as distinct from his political writings—he takes up an eclectic position, recommending governmental restrictions on colonial commerce as strongly as he advocates freedom of exchange at home. Of his writings, a complete edition of which was published in London in 1771, the following are the more important:—An Essay on the East India Trade (1697); Two Discourses on the Public Revenues and Trade of England (1698); An Essay on the probable means of making the people gainers in the balance of Trade (1699); A Discourse on Grants and Resumptions and Essays on the Balance of Power (1701).

DAVENANT, CHARLES (1656-1714), English economist, the eldest son of Sir William Davenant, the poet, was born in London and educated at Cheam grammar school and Balliol College, Oxford, but left the university without earning a degree. At nineteen, he wrote a tragedy, Circe, which was somewhat successful, but he quickly shifted his focus to law. After obtaining an LL.D. degree, he became a member of Doctors’ Commons. He served as a member of parliament for St Ives, Cornwall, and for Great Bedwyn. He was the commissioner of excise from 1683 to 1689 and the inspector-general of exports and imports from 1705 until his death in 1714. He also acted as secretary to the commission tasked with negotiating the union with Scotland. As an economist, he was a strong supporter of mercantile theory, and in his economic pamphlets—distinct from his political writings—he took an eclectic stance, advocating for governmental restrictions on colonial trade while also supporting free trade at home. His writings, a complete edition of which was released in London in 1771, include several important works: An Essay on the East India Trade (1697); Two Discourses on the Public Revenues and Trade of England (1698); An Essay on the Probable Means of Making the People Gainers in the Balance of Trade (1699); A Discourse on Grants and Resumptions and Essays on the Balance of Power (1701).


DAVENANT (or D’Avenant), SIR WILLIAM (1606-1668), English poet and dramatist, was baptized on the 3rd of March 1606; he was born at the Crown Inn, Oxford, of which his father, a wealthy vintner, was proprietor. It was stated that Shakespeare always stopped at this house in passing through the city of Oxford, and out of his known or rumoured admiration of the hostess, a very fine woman, there sprang a scandalous story which attributed Davenant’s paternity to Shakespeare, a legend which there is reason to believe Davenant himself encouraged, 852 but which later criticism has cast aside as spurious. In 1621 the vintner was made mayor of Oxford, and in the same year his son left the grammar school of All Saints, where his master had been Edward Sylvester, and was entered an undergraduate of Lincoln College, Oxford. He did not stay at the university, however, long enough to take a degree, but was hurried away to appear at court as a page, in the retinue of the gorgeous duchess of Richmond. From her service he passed into that of Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke, in whose house he remained until the murder of that eminent man in 1628. This blow threw him upon the world, not altogether without private means, but greatly in need of a profitable employment.

DAVENANT (or D'Avenant), SIR WILLIAM (1606-1668), English poet and playwright, was baptized on March 3, 1606; he was born at the Crown Inn in Oxford, which his father, a wealthy wine merchant, owned. It was said that Shakespeare always stayed at this inn when passing through Oxford, and due to his known or rumored admiration for the hostess, a very attractive woman, a scandalous tale emerged claiming Shakespeare was Davenant’s father—a legend Davenant himself seemed to encourage, 852 but later critics have dismissed it as false. In 1621, Davenant's father was elected mayor of Oxford, and that same year, his son left All Saints Grammar School, where his teacher had been Edward Sylvester, and became an undergraduate at Lincoln College, Oxford. However, he didn’t stay at the university long enough to earn a degree, as he was soon called to court to serve as a page for the extravagant Duchess of Richmond. After leaving her service, he went to work for Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke, staying in his household until the nobleman was murdered in 1628. This tragedy left Davenant to fend for himself, not completely without financial backing, but still in need of a steady job.

He turned to the stage for subsistence, and in 1629 produced his first play, the tragedy of Albovine. It was not a very brilliant performance, but it pleased the town, and decided the poet to pursue a dramatic career. The next year saw the production at Blackfriars of The Cruel Brother, a tragedy, and The Just Italian, a tragi-comedy. Inigo Jones, the court architect, for whom Ben Jonson had long supplied the words of masques and complimentary pieces, quarrelled with his great colleague in the year 1634, and applied to William Davenant for verses. The result was The Temple of Love, performed by the queen and her ladies at Whitehall on Shrove Tuesday, 1634, and printed in that year. Another masque, The Triumphs of the Prince D’Amour, followed in 1636. The poet returned to the legitimate drama by the publication of the tragi-comedy of The Platonic Lovers, and the famous comedy of The Wits, in 1636, the latter of which, however, had been licensed in 1633. The masque of Britannica Triumphans (1637) brought him into some trouble, for it was suppressed as a punishment for its first performance having been arranged for a Sunday. By this time Davenant had, however, thoroughly ingratiated himself with the court; and on the death of Ben Jonson in 1637 he was rewarded with the office of poet-laureate, to the exclusion of Thomas May, who considered himself entitled to the honour. It was shortly after this event that Davenant collected his minor lyrical pieces in a volume entitled Madagascar and other Poems (1638); and in 1639 he became manager of the new theatre in Drury Lane. The civil war, however, put a check upon this prosperous career; and he was among the most active partisans of royalty through the whole of that struggle for supremacy.

He turned to the stage for support and, in 1629, created his first play, the tragedy of Albovine. It wasn't a particularly impressive performance, but it pleased the town and motivated the poet to pursue a career in drama. The following year, The Cruel Brother, a tragedy, and The Just Italian, a tragi-comedy, were produced at Blackfriars. Inigo Jones, the court architect who had long provided the words for masques and complimentary pieces for Ben Jonson, had a falling out with his prominent colleague in 1634 and approached William Davenant for verses. This collaboration resulted in The Temple of Love, performed by the queen and her ladies at Whitehall on Shrove Tuesday, 1634, and published that same year. Another masque, The Triumphs of the Prince D’Amour, followed in 1636. The poet returned to legitimate drama with the release of the tragi-comedy The Platonic Lovers and the well-known comedy The Wits in 1636, the latter having received a license in 1633. The masque Britannica Triumphans (1637) caused him some trouble, as it was suppressed as punishment for its premiere being scheduled for a Sunday. By that time, however, Davenant had won over the court completely, and after Ben Jonson's death in 1637, he was appointed poet-laureate, much to the chagrin of Thomas May, who believed he deserved the honor. Shortly after this, Davenant compiled his smaller lyrical works into a volume titled Madagascar and other Poems (1638), and in 1639, he became the manager of the new theatre in Drury Lane. However, the civil war hindered this promising career, and he was one of the most active supporters of royalty throughout that struggle for power.

As early as May 1642, Davenant was accused before the Long Parliament of being mainly concerned in a scheme to seduce the army to overthrow the Commons. He was accordingly apprehended at Faversham, and imprisoned for two months in London; he then attempted to escape to France, and succeeded in reaching Canterbury, where he was recaptured. Escaping a second time, he made good his way to the queen, with whom he remained in France until he volunteered to carry over to England some military stores for the army of his old friend the earl of Newcastle, by whom he was induced to enter the service as lieutenant-general of ordnance. He acquitted himself with so much bravery and skill that, after the siege of Gloucester, in 1643, he was knighted by the king. After the battle of Naseby he retired to Paris, where he became a Roman Catholic, and spent some months in the composition of his epic poem of Gondibert. In 1646 he was sent by the queen on a mission to Charles I., then at Newcastle, to advise him to “part with the church for his peace and security.” The king dismissed him with some sharpness, and Davenant returned to Paris, where he was the guest of Lord Jermyn. In 1650 he took the command of a colonizing expedition that set sail from France to Virginia, but was captured in the Channel by a parliamentary man-of-war, which took him back to the Isle of Wight. Imprisoned in Cowes castle until 1651, he tempered the discomfort and suspense of his condition by continuing the composition of Gondibert. He was sent up to the Tower to await his trial for high treason, but just as the storm was about to break over his head, all cleared away. It is believed that the personal intercession of Milton led to this result. Another account is that he was released by the desire of two aldermen of York, once his prisoners, whom he had allowed to escape. Davenant, released from prison, immediately published Gondibert, the work on which his fame mainly rests, a chivalric epic in the four-line stanza which Sir John Davies had made popular by his Nosce teipsum, the influence of which is strongly marked in the philosophical passages of Gondibert. It is a cumbrous, dull production, but is relieved with a multitude of fine and felicitous passages, and lends itself most happily to quotation.

As early as May 1642, Davenant was accused in the Long Parliament of being mainly involved in a plot to persuade the army to overthrow the Commons. He was arrested at Faversham and imprisoned for two months in London; he then attempted to escape to France and made it to Canterbury, where he was recaptured. After escaping a second time, he managed to reach the queen, with whom he stayed in France until he volunteered to deliver some military supplies to the army of his old friend, the Earl of Newcastle, who persuaded him to serve as lieutenant-general of ordnance. He performed so bravely and skillfully that after the siege of Gloucester in 1643, he was knighted by the king. Following the battle of Naseby, he returned to Paris, where he converted to Roman Catholicism and spent several months writing his epic poem, Gondibert. In 1646, he was sent by the queen on a mission to Charles I., who was then in Newcastle, to advise him to “give up the church for his peace and security.” The king dismissed him curtly, and Davenant returned to Paris, where he was hosted by Lord Jermyn. In 1650, he took charge of a colonizing expedition that set sail from France to Virginia but was captured in the Channel by a parliamentary warship, which took him back to the Isle of Wight. He was imprisoned in Cowes Castle until 1651, easing the discomfort and anxiety of his situation by continuing to write Gondibert. He was sent to the Tower to await his trial for high treason, but just as the storm was about to break over him, everything cleared up. It is believed that Milton personally intervened to help him. Another account suggests he was released due to the wishes of two York aldermen, once his prisoners, whom he had allowed to escape. After his release from prison, Davenant quickly published Gondibert, the work on which his reputation largely rests—a chivalric epic in the four-line stanza made popular by Sir John Davies in Nosce teipsum, whose influence is strongly reflected in the philosophical sections of Gondibert. While it is a cumbersome, dull work, it contains many fine and memorable passages and lends itself well to quotation.

During the civil war one of his plays had been printed, the tragedy of The Unfortunate Lovers, in 1643. One of his best plays, Love and Honour, was published in 1649, but appears to have been acted long before. He found that there were many who desired him to recommence his theatrical career. Such a step, however, was absolutely forbidden by Puritan law. Davenant, therefore, by the help of some influential friends, obtained permission to open a sort of theatre at Rutland House, in Charterhouse Yard, where, on the 21st of May 1656, he began a series of representations, which he called operas, as an inoffensive term. This word was then first introduced into the English language. The opening piece was a kind of dialogue defending the drama in the abstract. This was followed by his own Siege of Rhodes, printed the same year, which was performed with stage decorations and machinery of a kind hitherto quite unthought of in England. Two other innovations in its production were the introduction of recitative and the appearance of a woman, Mrs Coleman, on the stage. He continued until the Restoration to produce ephemeral works of this kind, only one of which, The Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru, in 1658, was of sufficient literary merit to survive. In 1660 he had the infinite satisfaction of being able to preserve the life of that glorious poet who had, nine years before, saved his own from a not less imminent danger. The mutual relations of Milton and Davenant do honour to the generosity of two men who, sincerely opposed in politics, knew how to forget their personal anger in their common love of letters. In 1659 Davenant suffered a short imprisonment for complicity in Sir George Booth’s revolt. Under Charles II. Davenant flourished in the dramatic world; he opened a new theatre in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, which he called the Duke’s; and he introduced a luxury and polish into the theatrical life which it had never before known in England. Under his management, the great actors of the Restoration, Betterton and his coevals, took their peculiar French style and appearance; and the ancient simplicity of the English stage was completely buried under the tinsel of decoration and splendid scenery. Davenant brought out six new plays in the Duke’s Theatre, The Rivals (1668), an adaptation of The Two Noble Kinsmen, which Davenant never owned, The Man’s the Master (1669), comedies translated from Scarron, News from Plymouth, The Distresses, The Siege, The Fair Favourite, tragi-comedies, all of which were printed after his death, and only one of which survived their author on the stage. He died at his house in Lincoln’s Inn Fields on the night of the 7th of April 1668, and two days afterwards was buried in Poets’ Corner, Westminster Abbey, with the inscription “O rare Sir William Davenant!” In 1672 his writings were collected in folio. His last work had been to travesty Shakespeare’s Tempest in company with Dryden.

During the civil war, one of his plays was published, the tragedy of The Unfortunate Lovers, in 1643. One of his best works, Love and Honour, came out in 1649, although it seems to have been performed long before that. He discovered that many people wanted him to restart his career in theater. However, Puritan law strictly prohibited this. Therefore, with the help of some influential friends, Davenant got permission to open a sort of theater at Rutland House in Charterhouse Yard, where, on May 21, 1656, he began a series of performances he called operas, using a more acceptable term. This word was introduced into the English language for the first time. The opening piece was a dialogue defending drama in general. This was followed by his own Siege of Rhodes, printed the same year, which was performed with stage decorations and machinery that had never been seen before in England. Two other innovations in its production were the use of recitative and the appearance of a woman, Mrs. Coleman, on stage. He continued to produce these kinds of short-lived works until the Restoration, with only one piece, The Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru, in 1658, being significant enough to survive. In 1660, he had the immense satisfaction of being able to save the life of that great poet who, nine years earlier, had saved his own from a similarly dire fate. The relationship between Milton and Davenant reflects the generosity of two men who, though fundamentally opposed politically, knew how to set aside their personal differences for their shared love of literature. In 1659, Davenant experienced a brief imprisonment for his involvement in Sir George Booth’s revolt. Under Charles II, Davenant thrived in the theatrical scene; he opened a new theater in Lincoln’s Inn Fields called the Duke’s, and he introduced a level of luxury and sophistication to theater that had never been seen in England before. Under his management, the great actors of the Restoration, Betterton and his contemporaries, adopted a distinct French style and appearance, completely burying the old simplicity of the English stage under flashy decorations and elaborate scenery. Davenant premiered six new plays at the Duke’s Theatre: The Rivals (1668), an adaptation of The Two Noble Kinsmen, which he never acknowledged, The Man’s the Master (1669), comedies translated from Scarron, News from Plymouth, The Distresses, The Siege, and The Fair Favourite, tragi-comedies, all of which were published after his death, with only one surviving on stage beyond his lifetime. He passed away at his home in Lincoln’s Inn Fields on the night of April 7, 1668, and two days later was buried in Poets’ Corner, Westminster Abbey, with the inscription “O rare Sir William Davenant!” In 1672, his works were compiled in folio. His last project had been to adapt Shakespeare’s Tempest alongside Dryden.

The personal character, adventures and fame of Davenant, and more especially his position as a leading reformer, or rather debaser, of the stage, have always given him a prominence in the history of literature which his writings hardly justify. His plays are utterly unreadable, and his poems are usually stilted and unnatural. With Cowley he marks the process of transition from the poetry of the imagination to the poetry of the intelligence; but he had far less genius than Cowley, and his influence on English drama must be condemned as wholly deplorable.

The personal character, adventures, and fame of Davenant, especially his role as a leading reformer, or rather a detractor, of the stage, have always given him a significant place in the history of literature that his writings don’t really support. His plays are completely unreadable, and his poems are often forced and unnatural. Along with Cowley, he represents the shift from imaginative poetry to more intellectual poetry; however, he had far less talent than Cowley, and his impact on English drama must be seen as entirely negative.

(E. G.)

DAVENPORT, EDWARD LOOMIS (1816-1877), American actor, born in Boston, made his first appearance on the stage in Providence in support of Junius Brutus Booth. Afterwards he went to England, where he supported Mrs Anna Cora Mowatt (Ritchie) (1819-1870), Macready and others. In 1854 he was again in the United States, appearing in Shakespearian plays and in dramatizations of Dickens’s novels. As Bill Sykes he was 853 especially successful, and his Sir Giles Overreach and Brutus were also greatly admired. He died at Canton, Pennsylvania, on the 1st of September 1877. In 1849 he had married Fanny Vining (Mrs Charles Gill) (d. 1891), an English actress also in Mrs Mowatt’s company. Their daughter Fanny (Lily Gipsy) Davenport (1850-1898) appeared in America at the age of twelve as the king of Spain in Faint Heart Never Won Fair Lady. Later (1869) she was a member of Daly’s company; and afterwards, with a company of her own, acted with especial success in Sardou’s Fédora (1883), Cleopatra (1890), and similar plays. Her last appearance was on the 25th of March 1898, shortly before her death.

DAVENPORT, EDWARD LOOMIS (1816-1877), American actor, born in Boston, made his stage debut in Providence, supporting Junius Brutus Booth. He later traveled to England, where he performed alongside Mrs. Anna Cora Mowatt (Ritchie) (1819-1870), Macready, and others. In 1854, he returned to the United States, starring in Shakespeare’s plays and adaptations of Dickens’s novels. He was especially successful as Bill Sykes, and his portrayals of Sir Giles Overreach and Brutus were also highly praised. He passed away in Canton, Pennsylvania, on September 1, 1877. In 1849, he married Fanny Vining (Mrs. Charles Gill) (d. 1891), an English actress who was also part of Mrs. Mowatt’s company. Their daughter Fanny (Lily Gypsy) Davenport (1850-1898) made her American debut at the age of twelve as the king of Spain in Faint Heart Never Won Fair Lady. Later (1869), she joined Daly’s company, and then, with her own troupe, found notable success in Sardou’s Fédora (1883), Cleopatra (1890), and similar productions. Her final performance was on March 25, 1898, just before her death.


DAVENPORT, ROBERT (fl. 1623-1639), English dramatist, is mentioned as the author of a play licensed in 1624 under the title of Henry I. In 1653 Henry I. and Henry II. was entered at Stationers’ Hall by Humphrey Moseley with a second part said to be the work of Davenport and Shakespeare. Of this play or plays nothing has been discovered, but King John and Matilda (printed 1655), which probably dates from about the same time, has survived. Throughout the play, as in its closing scene quoted by Charles Lamb in his Dramatic Specimens, there is much “passion and poetry” which saves the piece from being classed as pure melodrama. The City-Night-Cap was licensed in 1624, but not printed until 1661. The underplot of this unsavoury play was borrowed from Cervantes and Boccaccio, and Mrs Aphra Behn’s Amorous Prince (1671) is an adaptation from it. A New Tricke to Cheat the Divell (printed 1639) is a farcical comedy, which contains among other things the idea of the popular supper story which reappears in Hans Andersen’s Little Claus and Big Claus. As told by Davenport the story closely resembles the Scottish Freires of Berwick, which was printed in 1603. Three other plays entered in the Stationers’ Register as Davenport’s are lost, and he collaborated in two plays with Thomas Drue.

DAVENPORT, ROBERT (fl. 1623-1639), English playwright, is noted as the author of a play that was licensed in 1624 titled Henry I. In 1653, Henry I. and Henry II. was registered at Stationers’ Hall by Humphrey Moseley, featuring a second part believed to be the work of both Davenport and Shakespeare. No copies of these plays have been found, but King John and Matilda (printed in 1655), which likely dates from around the same period, has survived. Throughout the play, and especially in its closing scene quoted by Charles Lamb in his Dramatic Specimens, there is a significant amount of “passion and poetry” that elevates the work beyond mere melodrama. The City-Night-Cap was licensed in 1624 but wasn’t printed until 1661. The subplot of this unsavory play was taken from Cervantes and Boccaccio, and Mrs. Aphra Behn’s Amorous Prince (1671) is an adaptation of it. A New Tricke to Cheat the Divell (printed in 1639) is a comedic farce that includes, among other things, the concept of the popular supper story that reappears in Hans Andersen’s Little Claus and Big Claus. In Davenport’s version, the story closely resembles the Scottish Freires of Berwick, printed in 1603. Three other plays listed in the Stationers’ Register as Davenport’s are lost, and he collaborated on two plays with Thomas Drue.

Davenport’s plays were reprinted by A. H. Bullen in Old English Plays (new series, 1890). The volume includes two didactic poems, which first saw the light in 1623.

Davenport’s plays were reprinted by A. H. Bullen in Old English Plays (new series, 1890). The volume includes two instructional poems that were first published in 1623.


DAVENPORT, a city and the county seat of Scott county, Iowa, U.S.A., on the Mississippi river, opposite Rock Island, Illinois, with which it is connected by two fine bridges and by a ferry. It is the third largest city in the state. Pop. (1890) 26,872; (1900) 35,254, including 8479 foreign-born (6111 German), and 19,230 of foreign parentage (13,294 German); (1905, state census) 39,797; (1910) 43,028. Davenport is served by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Iowa & Illinois (interurban), and the Davenport, Rock Island & North Western railways; opposite the city is the western terminus of the Illinois and Mississippi, or Hennepin, Canal (which connects the Mississippi and Illinois rivers). Davenport lies on the slope of a bluff affording extensive views of landscape and river scenery. In the city are an excellent public library, an Academy of Sciences, several turn-halls and other German social organizations, the Iowa soldiers’ orphans’ home, Brown business college, and several minor Roman Catholic institutions. Davenport is an episcopal see of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Episcopal churches. The city has a large commerce and trade by water and rail in coal and grain, which are produced in the vicinity, is of special importance. With Rock Island and Moline it forms one great commercial unit. Among Davenport’s manufactures are the products of foundries and machine shops, and of flouring, grist and planing mills; glucose syrup and products; locomotives, steel cars and car parts, washing machines, waggons, carriages, agricultural implements, buttons, macaroni, crackers and brooms. The value of the total factory product for 1905 was $13,695,978, an increase of 38.7% over that of 1900. Davenport was founded in 1835, under the leadership of Colonel George Davenport; it was incorporated as a town in 1838, and was chartered as a city in 1851.

DAVENPORT, is a city and the county seat of Scott County, Iowa, U.S.A., located on the Mississippi River, across from Rock Island, Illinois. The two cities are connected by two major bridges and a ferry. It is the third largest city in the state. Population: (1890) 26,872; (1900) 35,254, including 8,479 foreign-born (6,111 German), and 19,230 of foreign parentage (13,294 German); (1905, state census) 39,797; (1910) 43,028. Davenport is served by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Iowa & Illinois (interurban), and the Davenport, Rock Island & North Western railways; opposite the city is the western terminus of the Illinois and Mississippi, or Hennepin, Canal, which connects the Mississippi and Illinois rivers. Davenport sits on the slope of a bluff that offers expansive views of the landscape and river scenery. The city has an excellent public library, an Academy of Sciences, several turn-halls, and other German social organizations, the Iowa soldiers’ orphans’ home, Brown business college, and several minor Roman Catholic institutions. Davenport is an episcopal see for both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Episcopal churches. The city has significant commerce and trade by water and rail in coal and grain produced in the area. Together with Rock Island and Moline, it forms a major commercial unit. Davenport manufactures products from foundries and machine shops, flour, grist, and planing mills; glucose syrup and related products; locomotives, steel cars and parts, washing machines, wagons, carriages, agricultural implements, buttons, macaroni, crackers, and brooms. The total value of factory production in 1905 was $13,695,978, marking a 38.7% increase compared to 1900. Davenport was founded in 1835 under the leadership of Colonel George Davenport; it became incorporated as a town in 1838 and was chartered as a city in 1851.


DAVENTRY, a market town and municipal borough in the Southern parliamentary division of Northamptonshire, England, 74 m. N.W. from London by the London & North Western railway. Pop. (1901) 3780. It is picturesquely situated on a sloping site in a rich undulating country. On the adjacent Borough Hill are extensive earthworks, and the discovery of remains here and at Burnt Walls, immediately south, proves the existence of a considerable Roman station. The chief industry of the town is the manufacture of boots and shoes. The borough is under a mayor, four aldermen and twelve councillors. Area, 3633 acres.

DAVENTRY, is a market town and municipal borough located in the Southern parliamentary division of Northamptonshire, England, 74 miles northwest of London via the London & North Western railway. Its population was 3,780 in 1901. The town is beautifully set on a sloping site in a rich, rolling landscape. Nearby, Borough Hill features extensive earthworks, and the discovery of remains at this site and Burnt Walls, just to the south, indicates the existence of a significant Roman settlement. The town's main industry is the production of boots and shoes. The borough is governed by a mayor, four aldermen, and twelve councillors. The total area is 3,633 acres.

In spite of the Roman remains on Borough Hill, nothing is known of the town itself until the time of the Domesday Survey, when the manor consisting of eight hides belonged to the countess Judith, the Conqueror’s niece. According to tradition, Daventry was created a borough by King John, but there is no extant charter before that of Elizabeth in 1576, by which the town was incorporated under the name of the bailiff, burgesses and commonalty of the borough of Daventry. The bailiff was to be chosen every year in the Moot Hall and to be assisted by fourteen principal burgesses and a recorder. James I. confirmed this charter in 1605-1606, and Charles II. in 1674-1675 granted a new charter. The “quo warranto” rolls show that a market every Wednesday and a fair on St Augustine’s day were granted to Simon son of Walter by King John. The charter of 1576 confirms this market and fair to the burgesses, and grants them two new fairs each continuing for two days, on Tuesday after Easter and on the feast of St Matthew the Apostle. Wednesday is still the market day. The town was an important coaching centre, and there was a large local industry in the manufacture of whips. During the civil wars Daventry was the headquarters of Charles I. in the summer of 1645, immediately before the battle of Naseby, at which he was defeated. A Cluniac priory founded here shortly after the Conquest has left no remains.

Despite the Roman ruins on Borough Hill, little is known about the town itself until the Domesday Survey, when the manor with eight hides was owned by Countess Judith, the niece of the Conqueror. According to tradition, Daventry was established as a borough by King John, but there’s no existing charter prior to Elizabeth’s in 1576, which incorporated the town under the name of the bailiff, burgesses, and commonalty of the borough of Daventry. The bailiff was to be elected every year in the Moot Hall, assisted by fourteen principal burgesses and a recorder. James I confirmed this charter in 1605-1606, and Charles II granted a new charter in 1674-1675. The "quo warranto" rolls indicate that King John granted Simon son of Walter a market every Wednesday and a fair on St. Augustine's Day. The 1576 charter upholds this market and fair for the burgesses and adds two new fairs lasting two days each, on the Tuesday after Easter and on the feast of St. Matthew the Apostle. Wednesday remains the market day. The town was a key coaching hub, and there was a significant local industry in whip-making. During the Civil Wars, Daventry served as Charles I's headquarters in the summer of 1645, just before the battle of Naseby, where he was defeated. A Cluniac priory founded here shortly after the Conquest has left no traces.


DAVEY OF FERNHURST, HORACE DAVEY, Baron (1833-1907), English judge, son of Peter Davey, of Horton, Bucks, was born on the 30th of August 1833, and educated at Rugby and University College, Oxford. He took a double first-class in classics and mathematics, was senior mathematical scholar and Eldon law scholar, and was elected a fellow of his college. In 1861 he was called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn, and read in the chambers of Mr (afterwards Vice-Chancellor) Wickens. Devoting himself to the Chancery side, he soon acquired a large practice, and in 1875 became a Q.C. In 1880 he was returned to parliament as a Liberal for Christchurch, Hants, but lost his seat in 1885. On Gladstone’s return to power in 1886 he was appointed solicitor-general and was knighted, but had no seat in the House, being defeated at both Ipswich and Stockport in 1886; in 1888 he found a seat at Stockton-on-Tees, but was rejected by that constituency in 1892. As an equity lawyer Sir Horace Davey ranked among the finest intellects and the most subtle pleaders ever known at the English bar. He was standing counsel to the university of Oxford, and senior counsel to the Charity Commissioners, and was engaged in all the important Chancery suits of his time. Among the chief leading cases in which he took a prominent part were those of The Mogul Steamship Company v. M‘Gregor, 1892, Boswell v. Coaks, 1884, Erlanger v. New Sombrero Company, 1878, and the Ooregum Gold Mines Company v. Roper, 1892; he was counsel for the promoters in the trial of the bishop of Lincoln, and leading counsel in the Berkeley peerage case. In 1862 he married Miss Louisa Donkin, who, with two sons and four daughters, survived him. In 1893 he was raised to the bench as a lord justice of appeal, and in the next year was made a lord of appeal in ordinary and a life peer. He died in London on the 20th of February 1907. Lord Davey’s great legal knowledge was displayed in his judgments no less than at the bar. In legislation he took no conspicuous part, but he was a keen promoter of the act passed in 1906 for the checking of gambling.

DAVEY OF FERNHURST, HORACE DAVEY, Baron (1833-1907), English judge, son of Peter Davey from Horton, Bucks, was born on August 30, 1833, and educated at Rugby and University College, Oxford. He graduated with top honors in classics and mathematics, was a senior mathematical scholar and Eldon law scholar, and became a fellow of his college. In 1861, he was called to the Bar at Lincoln's Inn and trained in the chambers of Mr. (later Vice-Chancellor) Wickens. Focusing on the Chancery side, he quickly built a large practice and became a Q.C. in 1875. In 1880, he was elected to parliament as a Liberal for Christchurch, Hants, but lost his seat in 1885. When Gladstone returned to power in 1886, he was appointed solicitor-general and knighted, but he did not hold a seat in the House, losing elections at both Ipswich and Stockport that year; in 1888, he secured a seat at Stockton-on-Tees, but was rejected by that constituency in 1892. As an equity lawyer, Sir Horace Davey was regarded as one of the greatest intellects and most skilled advocates ever seen at the English bar. He served as standing counsel to the University of Oxford and senior counsel to the Charity Commissioners, and he was involved in all significant Chancery cases of his era. Some of the major leading cases he participated in include The Mogul Steamship Company v. M‘Gregor, 1892, Boswell v. Coaks, 1884, Erlanger v. New Sombrero Company, 1878, and Ooregum Gold Mines Company v. Roper, 1892; he acted as counsel for the promoters in the trial of the Bishop of Lincoln and was the leading counsel in the Berkeley peerage case. In 1862, he married Miss Louisa Donkin, who, along with their two sons and four daughters, outlived him. In 1893, he was appointed as a lord justice of appeal, and the following year he became a lord of appeal in ordinary and a life peer. He passed away in London on February 20, 1907. Lord Davey’s immense legal knowledge was evident in both his judgments and his work at the bar. He took no prominent role in legislation but was an ardent supporter of the act passed in 1906 to curb gambling.


DAVID (a Hebrew name meaning probably beloved1), in the Bible, the son of Jesse, king of Judah and Israel, and founder of the royal Judaean dynasty at Jerusalem. The chronology of his period is uncertain: the usual date, 1055-1015 B.C., is probably 854 Source. thirty years to half a century too early. The books of Samuel (strictly, 1 Sam. xvi.-1 Kings ii.), which are our principal source for the history of David, show how deep an impression the personality of the king, his character, his genius and the romantic story of his early years had left on the mind of the nation. Of no hero of antiquity do we possess so life-like a portrait. Minute details and traits of character are portrayed with a vividness which bears all the marks of contemporary narrative. But the record is by no means all of one piece or of one date. This history, as we now have it, is extracted from various sources of unequal value, which are fitted together in a way which offers considerable difficulties to the critic. In the history of David’s early adventures, for example, the narrative is not seldom disordered, and sometimes seems to repeat itself with puzzling variations of detail, which have led critics to the unanimous conclusion that the First Book of Samuel is drawn from at least two sources. It is indeed easy to understand that the romantic incidents of this period were much in the mouths of the people—to whom David was a popular hero—and in course of time were written down in various forms which were not combined into perfect harmony by later editors, who gave excerpts from several sources rather than a new and independent history. These excerpts, however, have been so pieced together, that it is often impossible to separate them with precision, and to distinguish accurately between earlier and later elements. It even appears from a study of the Greek text that some copies of the books of Samuel incorporated narratives which other copies did not acknowledge. For the literary problems of these books, see also Samuel (Books).

DAVID (a Hebrew name meaning probably beloved1), in the Bible, is the son of Jesse, king of Judah and Israel, and the founder of the royal Judaean dynasty in Jerusalem. The timeline of his reign is unclear; the commonly accepted dates, 1055-1015 B.C., are likely thirty years to half a century too early. The books of Samuel (specifically, 1 Sam. xvi.-1 Kings ii.), which are our main sources for David's history, show how significant the king's personality, character, genius, and the romantic tales of his early years were to the nation. We have no other ancient hero whose portrait is so vivid. Detailed traits of his character are depicted in a way that feels contemporary. However, this account is not entirely cohesive or from a single time. The history we have now is gathered from various sources of different reliability, pieced together in a manner that presents challenges for critics. For instance, in recounting David's early adventures, the narrative is often jumbled and seems to repeat itself with confusing variations, leading critics to agree that the First Book of Samuel comes from at least two sources. It's easy to see how the romantic stories from this period were popular among the people, for whom David was a beloved hero, and were eventually recorded in various forms that later editors failed to harmonize perfectly, providing excerpts from several sources instead of a new, unified account. These excerpts have been assembled in such a way that it's often impossible to distinctly separate them and accurately identify earlier and later components. It even appears from studying the Greek text that some copies of the books of Samuel included stories that other copies did not acknowledge. For the literary issues related to these books, see also Samuel (Books).

The parallel history of David in 1 Chron. xi.-xxix. contains a great deal of additional matter, which can rarely be treated as of equal historical value with the preceding. Where it follows the chapters in Samuel it is important for textual and other critical problems, but it omits narratives in which it is not interested (David’s youth, persecution by Saul, Absalom’s revolt, &c.), and adds long passages (David’s arrangements for the temple, &c.) which reflect the views of a much later age than David’s. The lists of officers, &c., are fuller than those in Samuel, and here and there contain notices of value. A comparison of the two records, however, is especially important for its illustration of the later tendency to idealize the figure of David, and the historical critic has to bear in mind the possibility that this tendency had begun long before the Chronicler’s time, and that it may be found in the relatively older records preserved in Samuel.

The parallel account of David in 1 Chronicles 11-29 includes a lot of extra information, which is rarely considered to have the same historical value as what came before. Where it aligns with the chapters in Samuel, it is important for text and other critical issues, but it leaves out stories that don't interest it (like David’s youth, his persecution by Saul, Absalom’s rebellion, etc.) and adds lengthy sections (like David’s plans for the temple, etc.) that reflect perspectives from a much later time than David’s. The lists of officials, etc., are more detailed than those in Samuel and occasionally include valuable notes. However, comparing the two accounts is particularly important for showing the later tendency to idealize David's character, and historical critics need to keep in mind that this trend might have started long before the time of the Chronicler and could also be found in the relatively older records preserved in Samuel.

David’s father, Jesse, was a citizen of Bethlehem in Judah, 5 m. south of Jerusalem; the polite deprecation in 1 Sam. xviii. 18 means little (cf. Saul in ix. 21). Tradition made him a descendant of the ancient nobles of Introduction to Saul. Judah through Boaz and the Moabitess Ruth, but the tendency to furnish a noble ancestry for a noble figure—especially one of obscure birth—is widespread (cf. Genealogy). He was the youngest of eight sons,2 and spent his youth in an occupation which the Hebrews as well as the Arabs seem to have held in low esteem. He kept his father’s sheep in the desert steppes of Judah, and there developed the strength, agility, endurance and courage which distinguished him throughout life (cf. 1 Sam. xvii. 34, xxiv. 2; 2 Sam. xvii. 9). There, too, he acquired that skill in music which led to his first introduction to Saul (1 Sam. xvi. 14-23, and the apocryphal Psalm of David, Ps. cli. in the Septuagint). He found favour in the king’s eye, and became his armour-bearer.3 But traditions varied. In 1 Sam. xvii. he does not follow his master to the field against the Philistines; he is an obscure untried shepherd lad sent by his father with supplies for his brothers in the Israelite camp. He does not even present himself before the king, and his brothers treat him with a petulance hardly conceivable if he stood well at court, and it appears from the close that neither Saul nor his captain Abner had heard of him before (vv. 55-58). There is, indeed, a flat contradiction between the two accounts, but a family of Greek MSS. represented by the Vatican text omit xvii. 12-31, xvii. 55-xviii. 5, and thus the difficulty is greatly lessened. Characteristic of the omitted portions are the friendship which sprang up between Jonathan and David and the latter’s appointment to a command in the army. A further difficulty is caused by 2 Sam. xxi. 19, which makes Elhanan the slayer of Goliath. David’s exploit is not referred to in 1 Sam. xxi. 10-15, xxix., and on this and other grounds the simpler tradition in 2 Sam. is usually preferred. (See Goliath.) But it must have been by some valiant deed that Saul was led to notice him (cf. xiv. 52), and David soon became both a popular hero and an object of jealousy to Saul. According to the Hebrew text of 1 Sam. xviii., Saul’s jealousy leaped at once to the conclusion that David’s ambition would not stop short of the kingship. Such a suspicion would be intelligible if we could suppose that the king had heard something of the significant act of Samuel, which now stands at the head of the history of David in witness of that divine election and unction with the spirit of Yahweh on which his whole career hung (xvi. 1-13). But this passage is the sequel to the rejection of Saul in xv., and Samuel’s position agrees with that of the late writer in vii., viii. and xii.4

David's father, Jesse, was a citizen of Bethlehem in Judah, 5 miles south of Jerusalem; the polite belittling in 1 Sam. xviii. 18 doesn’t mean much (see Saul in ix. 21). Tradition claims he was a descendant of the ancient nobles of Judah through Boaz and the Moabitess Ruth, but the tendency to create a noble background for an important figure—especially one of unknown origin—is common (see Genealogy). He was the youngest of eight sons, 2 and spent his youth in a job that both the Hebrews and the Arabs seemed to look down upon. He took care of his father’s sheep in the desert plains of Judah, and there he developed the strength, agility, endurance, and courage that defined him throughout his life (see 1 Sam. xvii. 34, xxiv. 2; 2 Sam. xvii. 9). It was also there that he gained the musical talent that led to his first introduction to Saul (1 Sam. xvi. 14-23, and the apocryphal Psalm of David, Ps. cli. in the Septuagint). He won the king’s favor and became his armor-bearer. 3 But traditions differ. In 1 Sam. xvii., he doesn't follow his master to the battlefield against the Philistines; instead, he's just an untested shepherd boy sent by his father with supplies for his brothers in the Israelite camp. He doesn't even appear before the king, and his brothers treat him with a snappiness that's hard to imagine if he had a good standing at court, suggesting that neither Saul nor his captain Abner had heard of him before (vv. 55-58). There is, in fact, a clear contradiction between the two accounts, but a family of Greek manuscripts, represented by the Vatican text, omits xvii. 12-31, xvii. 55-xviii. 5, which reduces the complexity significantly. The omitted sections include the friendship that developed between Jonathan and David and David’s appointment to a military command. Another complication arises from 2 Sam. xxi. 19, which claims Elhanan killed Goliath. David’s feat isn’t mentioned in 1 Sam. xxi. 10-15, xxix., and for this and other reasons, the simpler account in 2 Sam. is generally preferred. (See Goliath.) But it must have been through some brave act that Saul first took notice of him (see xiv. 52), and David soon became both a popular hero and a source of jealousy for Saul. According to the Hebrew text of 1 Sam. xviii., Saul's jealousy immediately concluded that David's ambition wouldn’t stop short of the throne. This suspicion would make sense if we assume the king had heard something about the significant act of Samuel, which is now introduced at the beginning of David's history as a testament to that divine selection and anointing with the spirit of Yahweh on which his entire journey relied (xvi. 1-13). However, this passage follows the rejection of Saul in xv., and Samuel’s stance aligns with that of the later writer in vii., viii., and xii. 4

The shorter text, represented by the Septuagint, gives an account of Saul’s jealousy which is psychologically more intelligible.5 According to this text Saul was simply possessed with such a personal dislike and dread of Conflicts with Saul. David as might easily occupy his disordered brain. To be quit of his hateful presence he gave him a military command. In this charge David increased his reputation as a soldier and became a general favourite. Saul’s daughter Michal loved him; and her father, whose jealousy continued to increase, resolved to put the young captain on a perilous enterprise, promising him the hand of Michal as a reward of success, but secretly hoping that he would perish in the attempt. David’s good fortune did not desert him; he won his wife, and in this new advancement continued to grow in the popular favour, and to gain fresh laurels in the field. At this point it is necessary to look back on the proposed marriage of David with Saul’s eldest daughter Merab (xviii. 17-19; cf. xvii. 2-5). When the time came for Saul to fulfil his promise, Merab was given to Adriel of Abel-Meholah (perhaps an Aramaean). What is said of this affair interrupts the original context of chap. xviii., to which the insertion has been clumsily fitted by an interpolation in the second half of ver. 21 (LXX omits). We have here, therefore, a notice drawn from a distinct source which connects itself with the other omitted passage, xvii. 12-31, where Saul had promised his daughter to the one who should overthrow Goliath (ver. 25). Since Merab and Michal are confounded in 2 Sam. xxi. 8, the whole episode of Merab and David perhaps rests on a similar confusion of names.

The shorter text, represented by the Septuagint, describes Saul’s jealousy in a way that's more psychologically understandable. 5 According to this text, Saul was overwhelmed by a personal dislike and fear of David that easily filled his troubled mind. To get rid of David’s unpleasant presence, he gave him a military command. In this role, David bolstered his reputation as a soldier and became a favorite among the people. Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with him; meanwhile, her father, whose jealousy kept growing, planned to send the young captain on a dangerous mission, promising him Michal’s hand in marriage as a reward, while secretly hoping he would fail and perish. David’s luck held strong; he won the hand of his wife and, in this new position, continued to gain public favor and achieve new successes in battle. At this point, it’s important to revisit the proposed marriage of David to Saul’s eldest daughter Merab (xviii. 17-19; cf. xvii. 2-5). When the time came for Saul to keep his promise, Merab was given to Adriel of Abel-Meholah (possibly an Aramaean). This detail interrupts the original context of chapter xviii., as it has been awkwardly inserted into the second half of verse 21 (LXX omits). Thus, we have a notice sourced from a different reference that connects with the other omitted passage, xvii. 12-31, where Saul had promised his daughter to whoever could defeat Goliath (ver. 25). Since Merab and Michal are mixed up in 2 Sam. xxi. 8, the entire episode involving Merab and David might stem from a similar mix-up of names.

As the king’s son-in-law, David was necessarily again at court. He became chief of the bodyguard, as Ewald rightly interprets 1 Sam. xxii. 14, and ranked next to Abner (xx. 25), so that Saul’s insane fears were constantly exasperated by personal contact with him. On at least one occasion the king’s frenzy broke out in an attempt to murder David with his own hand.6 At another time Saul actually gave commands to assassinate his son-in-law, but the breach was made up by Jonathan, whose chivalrous spirit had united him to David in a covenant of closest friendship (xix. 1-7). The circumstances of the final outburst of Saul’s hatred, which drove David into exile, are not easily disentangled. 855 The narrative of 1 Sam. xx., which is the principal account of the matter, cannot originally have been preceded by xix. 11-24; in chap. xx. David appears to be still at court, and Jonathan is even unaware that he is in any danger, whereas the preceding verses represent him as already a fugitive. It may also be doubted whether the narrative of David’s escape from his own house by the aid of his wife Michal (xix. 11-17) has any close connexion with ver. 10, and does not rather belong to a later period.7 David’s daring spirit might very well lead him to visit his wife even after his first flight. The danger of such an enterprise was diminished by the reluctance to violate the apartments of women and attack a sleeping foe, which appears also in Judges xvi. 2, and among the Arabs.8

As the king’s son-in-law, David was back at court again. He became the head of the bodyguard, as Ewald rightly interprets 1 Sam. xxii. 14, and was ranked just below Abner (xx. 25), which constantly aggravated Saul’s crazy fears because of their personal interactions. At least once, the king’s rage exploded into an attempt to kill David with his own hands. At another time, Saul actually ordered that his son-in-law be assassinated, but Jonathan, driven by his noble spirit, resolved the conflict by uniting with David in a deep friendship covenant (xix. 1-7). The details surrounding the final explosion of Saul’s hatred that forced David into exile are complicated. The story in 1 Sam. xx., which is the main account of the situation, likely wasn’t initially preceded by xix. 11-24; in chapter xx, David seems to still be at court, and Jonathan is even unaware that he’s in danger, while the earlier verses portray him as already a fugitive. There’s also some doubt about whether the account of David escaping from his home with his wife Michal’s help (xix. 11-17) is closely connected to verse 10, or if it actually belongs to a later time. David’s adventurous nature could very well lead him to visit his wife even after his initial escape. The risk of such a visit was low due to the reluctance to invade women's quarters and attack a sleeping enemy, which is noted in Judges xvi. 2 and among the Arabs.

According to chap. xx. David was still at court in his usual position when he became certain that the king was aiming at his life. He betook himself to Jonathan, who thought his suspicions groundless, but undertook to test them. A plan was arranged by which Jonathan should draw from the king an expression of his feelings, and a tremendous explosion revealed that Saul regarded David as the rival of his dynasty, and Jonathan as little better than a fellow-conspirator. After a final interview (xx. 40-42), which must be regarded as a later expansion, they parted and David fled. He sought the sanctuary at Nob, where he had been wont to consult the priestly oracle (xxii. 15), and here, concealing his disgrace by a fictitious story, he also obtained bread from the consecrated table and the sword of Goliath (chap. xxi. i-9).9 His hasty flight—without food and weapon—suggests that the narrative should follow upon xix. 17.

According to chap. xx, David was still at court in his usual position when he realized that the king was out to kill him. He went to Jonathan, who thought his concerns were unfounded but agreed to investigate. They made a plan for Jonathan to find out the king's true feelings, and a big confrontation revealed that Saul saw David as a threat to his throne and considered Jonathan to be a conspirator. After a final meeting (xx. 40-42), which should be seen as a later addition, they said their goodbyes, and David ran away. He went to the sanctuary at Nob, where he usually consulted the priestly oracle (xxii. 15), and here, hiding his shame with a made-up story, he also got bread from the sacred table and Goliath's sword (chap. xxi. i-9).9 His quick escape—without food or weapons—suggests that the story should continue from xix. 17.

It was perhaps after this that David made a last attempt to find a place of refuge in the prophetic circle of Samuel at Ramah (xix. 18-24). The episode now stands in another connexion, where it is certainly out of place. It might, Outlaw life. however, fit into the break that plainly exists in the history at xxi. 10 after the affair at Nob. Deprived of the protection of religion as well as of justice, David tried his fortune among the Philistines at Gath. Recognized and suspected as a redoubtable foe, he made his escape by feigning madness, which in the East has inviolable privileges (xxi. 11-16).10 The passage anticipates chap. xxvii., and it is hardly probable that the slayer of Goliath or of any other Philistine giant fled to the Philistines with their dead hero’s sword. He returned to the wilds of Judah, and was joined at Adullam11 by his father’s house and by a small band of outlaws, of which he became the head. Placing his parents under the charge of the king of Moab, he took up the life of a guerilla captain, cultivating friendly relations with the townships of Judah (xxx. 26), which were glad to have on their frontiers a protector so valiant as David, even at the expense of the blackmail which he levied in return. A clear conception of his life at this time, and of the respect which he inspired by the discipline in which he held his men, and of the generosity which tempered his fiery nature, is given in chap. xxv. His force gradually swelled, and he was joined by the prophet Gad (note his message xxii. 5) and by the priest Abiathar, the only survivor of a terrible massacre by which Saul took revenge for the favours which David had received at the sanctuary of Nob. He was even able to strike at the Philistines, and to rescue Kĕīlah (south of Adullam and to the east of Beit Jibrīn) from their attack (xxiii. 1-13). Forced to flee by the treachery of the very men whom he had succoured, he lived for a time in constant fear of being captured by Saul, and at length took refuge with Achish king of Gath and established himself in Ziklag. Popular tradition, as though unwilling to let David escape from Saul, told of that king’s continual pursuit of the outlaw, of the attempt of the men of Ziph (S.E. of Hebron) to betray him, of David’s magnanimity displayed on two occasions, and of Jonathan’s visit to console his bosom friend (xxiv.-xxvi.).12 The situation was one which lent itself to the imagination.

It was probably after this that David made one last effort to find safety in the prophetic circle of Samuel at Ramah (xix. 18-24). This episode now appears in a different context where it definitely feels out of place. However, it could fit into the break that clearly exists in the history at xxi. 10 after the events at Nob. Stripped of the protection of religion as well as justice, David sought refuge among the Philistines at Gath. Recognized and suspected as a formidable enemy, he escaped by pretending to be insane, which in the East carries certain privileges (xxi. 11-16).10 This passage anticipates chap. xxvii., and it’s unlikely that the slayer of Goliath or any other Philistine giant would flee to the Philistines carrying their dead hero’s sword. He returned to the wilds of Judah and was joined at Adullam11 by his family and a small group of outlaws, of which he became the leader. After placing his parents under the care of the king of Moab, he assumed the role of a guerrilla leader, building friendly relations with the towns of Judah (xxx. 26), which were glad to have such a brave protector like David along their borders, even if it meant paying him in tribute. A clear picture of his life at this time, the respect he commanded through the discipline of his men, and the generosity that tempered his fiery nature is presented in chap. xxv. His group gradually grew, and he was joined by the prophet Gad (note his message xxii. 5) and by the priest Abiathar, the only survivor of a horrific massacre through which Saul took revenge for the favors David had received at the sanctuary of Nob. He even managed to strike against the Philistines and rescue Kĕīlah (south of Adullam and east of Beit Jibrīn) from their assault (xxiii. 1-13). Forced to flee because of the treachery of those he had helped, he lived in constant fear of being captured by Saul, eventually seeking refuge with Achish, king of Gath, and settling in Ziklag. Popular tradition, as if unwilling to let David escape from Saul, spoke of that king’s relentless pursuit of the outlaw, the attempts by the men of Ziph (S.E. of Hebron) to betray him, David’s acts of generosity shown on two occasions, and Jonathan’s visit to comfort his dear friend (xxiv.-xxvi.).12 This situation was one that sparked the imagination.

The site of Ziklag is unknown. It hardly lay near Gath (probably Tell es-Sāfi, 12 m. E. of Ashdod), but rather to the south of Judah (Josh. xix. 5). Here he occupied himself in chastening the Amalekites and other robber tribes who made raids on Judah and the Philistines without distinction (xxvii.). The details of the text are obscure, and seem to imply that David systematically attacked populations friendly to Achish whilst pretending that he had been making forays against Judah. If this were an attempt to steer a middle course his true actions could not have been kept secret long, and as it is implied that the Philistines subsequently acquiesced in David’s sovereignty in Hebron, it is not easy to see what interest they had in embroiling him with the men of Judah. At length, in the second year, he was called to join his master in a great campaign against Saul. The Philistines for once directed their forces towards the plain of Jezreel (Esdraelon) in the north; and Saul, forsaken by Yahweh, already gave himself up for lost. David accompanied the army as a matter of course. But his presence was not observed until they reached their destination, when the jealousy of the Philistines overrode his protestations of fidelity and he was ordered to return. He reached Ziklag only to find the town pillaged by the Amalekites. Pursuing the foes, he inflicted upon them a signal chastisement and took a great booty, part of which he spent in politic gifts to the leading men of the towns in the south country.13

The exact location of Ziklag is unknown. It probably wasn’t close to Gath (likely Tell es-Sāfi, 12 miles east of Ashdod), but rather to the south of Judah (Josh. xix. 5). Here, he focused on punishing the Amalekites and other raiding tribes that attacked both Judah and the Philistines. The details in the text are unclear and suggest that David systematically assaulted populations friendly to Achish while pretending to raid Judah. If this was an attempt to play both sides, his true intentions wouldn’t have stayed hidden for long. Since it’s implied that the Philistines later accepted David’s rule in Hebron, it's hard to see why they would have any interest in getting him into conflict with the men of Judah. Eventually, in the second year, he was summoned to join his lord in a significant campaign against Saul. For once, the Philistines aimed their forces toward the plain of Jezreel (Esdraelon) in the north; Saul, abandoned by Yahweh, already believed he was doomed. David naturally accompanied the army. However, his presence went unnoticed until they arrived at their destination, where the Philistines' jealousy overruled his claims of loyalty, and he was ordered to go back. He returned to Ziklag only to discover the town had been looted by the Amalekites. He chased after them, dealt them a significant defeat, and took a large amount of loot, some of which he used as strategic gifts for the influential leaders in the southern towns.13

Meantime Saul had fallen in battle, and northern Israel was in a state of chaos. The Philistines took possession of the fertile lowlands of Jezreel and the Jordan, and the shattered forces of Israel were slowly rallied by Abner in the remote city of Mahanaim in Gilead, under the nominal sovereignty of Saul’s son Ishbaal. David now took the first great step to the throne. He was no longer an outlaw with a band of wandering companions, but a petty chieftain, head of a small colony of men, allied with families of Caleb and Jezreel (in Judah), and on friendly footing King at Hebron. with the sheikhs south of Hebron. In response to an oracle he was bidden to move northwards to Judah and successfully occupied it with Hebron as his capital. Here he was anointed king, the first ruler of the southern kingdom. If the chronological notice may be trusted, he was then thirty years of age, and he reigned there for seven and a half years (2. Sam. ii. 1-4a, 11, v. 4 sq.). The noble elegy on the death of Saul and Jonathan, quoted from the Book of Jashar (2 Sam. i.), is marked by the absence both of religious feeling and of allusions to his earlier experiences with Saul which David might have been expected to make. It was deemed only natural that he should sympathize deeply with the disasters of the northern kingdom. His vengeance on the Amalekite who slew Saul—the account is a doublet of 1 Sam. xxxi.—is consistent with his generous treatment of his late adversary in his outlaw life, and with this agrees his embassy of thanks to the men of Jabesh-Gilead for their chivalrous rescue of the bodies of the fallen heroes (2 Sam. ii. 4b-7). The embassy threw out a hint,—their lord was dead and David himself had been anointed king over Judah; but the relation between Jabesh-Gilead and Saul had been a close one, and it was not to be expected that its eyes would be turned upon the king of Judah when Saul’s son was installed at the not distant Mahanaim. 856 The interest of the narratives is now directed away from the Philistines to the decaying fortunes of Saul’s house. (See Abner and Saul.) Abner had taken Saul’s son Ishbaal and his authority was gradually consolidated in the north. War broke out between the two parties at Gibeon a few miles north of Jerusalem. A sham contest was changed into a fatal fray by the treachery of Ishbaal’s men; and in the battle which ensued Abner was not only defeated, but, by slaying Asahel, drew upon himself a blood-feud with Joab. The war continued. Ishbaal’s party became weaker and weaker; and at length Abner quarrelled with his nominal master and offered the kingdom to David. The king seized the opportunity to demand the return of Michal, his wife. The passage (iii. 12-16) is not free from difficulties, but it is intelligible that David should desire to ally himself as closely as possible with Saul’s family (cf. xii. 8). The base murder of Abner by Joab did not long defer the inevitable issue of events. Ishbaal lost hope, and after he had been foully assassinated by two of his own followers, all Israel sought David as king.

Meanwhile, Saul had fallen in battle, and northern Israel was in chaos. The Philistines took control of the fertile lowlands of Jezreel and the Jordan, while the battered forces of Israel were slowly gathered by Abner in the distant city of Mahanaim in Gilead, under the nominal rule of Saul’s son, Ishbaal. David now took the first significant step toward the throne. He was no longer an outlaw with a group of wanderers but a minor chieftain, leading a small band of men allied with the families of Caleb and Jezreel (in Judah), and on friendly terms with the sheikhs south of Hebron. Responding to an oracle, he was directed to move north to Judah and successfully occupied it, making Hebron his capital. Here, he was anointed king, the first ruler of the southern kingdom. If the timeline is accurate, he was then thirty years old and reigned there for seven and a half years (2. Sam. ii. 1-4a, 11, v. 4 sq.). The noble elegy on the death of Saul and Jonathan, quoted from the Book of Jashar (2 Sam. i.), notably lacks any religious sentiments or references to his previous experiences with Saul that one might expect David to mention. It seemed only natural for him to empathize with the tragedies of the northern kingdom. His revenge on the Amalekite who killed Saul—this account is a duplicate of 1 Sam. xxxi.—aligns with his generous treatment of his former adversary during his outlaw days, and it’s consistent with his message of thanks to the men of Jabesh-Gilead for their honorable retrieval of the fallen heroes' bodies (2 Sam. ii. 4b-7). The message hinted that their lord was dead and that David had been anointed king over Judah; however, the bond between Jabesh-Gilead and Saul was strong, so it wasn’t expected that they would turn to the king of Judah while Saul’s son was installed at nearby Mahanaim. 856 The focus of the narratives now shifted away from the Philistines to the declining fortunes of Saul’s house. (See Abner and Saul.) Abner had taken Saul’s son Ishbaal, and his power was gradually solidifying in the north. War broke out between the two factions at Gibeon, just north of Jerusalem. A staged contest turned into a deadly fight due to the betrayal of Ishbaal’s men; in the ensuing battle, Abner was not only defeated but, by killing Asahel, incurred a blood feud with Joab. The war continued. Ishbaal’s party grew weaker and weaker; eventually, Abner quarreled with his nominal master and offered the kingdom to David. The king seized the chance to demand the return of Michal, his wife. This passage (iii. 12-16) has its complexities, but it makes sense that David would want to strengthen his ties with Saul’s family (cf. xii. 8). The treacherous murder of Abner by Joab did not significantly delay the inevitable outcome of events. Ishbaal lost hope, and after being brutally assassinated by two of his own followers, all of Israel sought David as king.

The biblical narrative is admittedly not so constructed as to enable us to describe in chronological order the thirty-three years of David’s reign over all Israel. It is possible that some of the incidents ascribed to this period properly belong to an earlier part of his life, and that tradition has idealized the life of David the king even as it has not failed to colour the history of David the outlaw and king of Hebron.

The biblical account isn't laid out in a way that lets us pinpoint the exact timeline of the thirty-three years of David's reign over all Israel. Some events attributed to this time may actually belong to earlier in his life, and tradition has romanticized the life of David the king just as it has influenced the narrative of David as an outlaw and king of Hebron.

In the preceding account the biblical narratives have been followed as closely as possible in the light of the critical results generally accepted. That they have been affected by the growth of popular tradition is patent from the traces Critical considerations. of duplicate narratives, from the difficulty caused, for example, by the story of Goliath (q.v.), and from a closer study of the chapters. The later views of the history of this period are represented in the book of Chronicles, where immediately after Saul’s death David is anointed at Hebron king over all Israel (1 Chron. xi.). It is quite in harmony with this that the same source speaks of the Israelites who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chron. xii. 1-22), and of the host which came to him at Hebron to turn over to him Saul’s kingdom (xii. 23-40). This treatment of history can be at once corrected by the books of Samuel, but it is only from a deeper study of the internal evidence that these, too, appear to give expression to doubtful and conflicting views. It is questionable whether David could have become king over all Israel immediately after the death of Ishbaal. The chronological notices in ii. 10 sqq. allow an interval of no less than five and a half years, and nowhere do the events of these years appear to be recorded. But David’s position in the south of Judah is clear. He is related by marriage with south Judaean clans of Caleb, Jezreel, and probably Geshur. (See Absalom.) He was at the head of a small colony (1 Sam. xxvii. 3), and on friendly terms with the sheikhs south of Hebron (xxx. 26-31).14 His step forward to Hebron is in every way intelligible and is the natural outcome of his policy. It is less easy to trace his previous moves. There are gaps in the narratives, and the further back we proceed the more serious do their difficulties become. These chapters bring him farther north, and they commence by depicting David as a man of Bethlehem, high in the court of Saul, the king’s son-in-law, and a popular favourite with the people. But notwithstanding this, the relation is broken off, and years elapse before David gains hold upon the Hebrews of north Israel, the weakness of the union being proved by the ease with which it was subsequently broken after Solomon’s death. Much of the life of Saul is obscure, and this too, it would seem, because tradition loved rather to speak of the founder of the ideal monarchy than of his less successful rival. (See Saul.) It is not impossible that some traditions did not bring them together. If Jerusalem and its immediate neighbourhood were first conquered by David (2 Sam. v.), it is probable that Beeroth and Gibeon (2 Sam. iv. 2, xxi. 2), Shaalbim, Har-heres and Aijalon (Judg. i. 35), Gezer (ib. i. 29), Chephirah and Kirjath-jearim (Josh. ix. 17) had remained Canaanite. The evidence has obviously some bearing upon the history of Saul, as also upon the intercourse between Judah and Benjamin which David’s early history implies. It has been conjectured, therefore, that David’s original home lay in the south. Since the early historical narrative (1 Sam. xxv. 2) finds him in Maon, Winckler has suggested that he was a Calebite chief, while a criticism of the details relating to David’s family has induced Marquart15 to conjecture that he was born at Arad (Tell ‘Arād) about 17 m. S.E. of Hebron. Once indeed we find him in the wilderness of Paran 1 (Sam. xxv. 1, LXX reads Maon), and a more southerly origin has been thought of (Winckler). This is involved with other views of the early history of the Israelites; see further below.

In the previous account, the biblical stories have been followed as closely as possible, considering the generally accepted critical findings. It's clear they've been influenced by the development of popular tradition, evident in the presence of duplicate narratives and the difficulties presented, for instance, by the story of Goliath (see Goliath), and in a closer examination of the chapters. The later perspectives on the history of this period are found in the book of Chronicles, where right after Saul’s death, David is anointed as king over all Israel at Hebron (1 Chron. xi.). This aligns with the same source talking about the Israelites who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chron. xii. 1-22) and the host that came to him at Hebron to transfer Saul’s kingdom to him (xii. 23-40). This historical interpretation can be corrected by the books of Samuel, but only through a deeper look at the internal evidence do these texts also seem to reflect uncertain and conflicting viewpoints. It's questionable whether David could have become king over all Israel immediately after the death of Ishbaal. The chronological references in ii. 10 and following suggest a gap of at least five and a half years, and there are no records of events from those years. However, David’s position in southern Judah is clear. He is related by marriage to southern Judah clans of Caleb, Jezreel, and probably Geshur (See Absalom.) He was leading a small colony (1 Sam. xxvii. 3) and was on friendly terms with the sheikhs south of Hebron (xxx. 26-31).14 His move to Hebron is completely understandable and is a natural result of his strategy. It's less straightforward to trace his earlier actions. There are gaps in the narratives, and the further back we go, the more complex the problems become. These chapters move him further north, starting with David depicted as a man from Bethlehem, prominent in Saul’s court, the king’s son-in-law, and well-liked by the people. But despite this, the relationship changes, and years pass before David gains support among the Hebrews in northern Israel, showcasing the weakness of the union, which was easily disrupted after Solomon’s death. Much of Saul’s life remains unclear, likely because tradition preferred to focus on the founder of the ideal monarchy rather than his less successful rival (See Saul.) It’s possible that some traditions did not connect them. If David first conquered Jerusalem and its surrounding areas (2 Sam. v.), it’s likely that Beeroth and Gibeon (2 Sam. iv. 2, xxi. 2), Shaalbim, Har-heres, and Aijalon (Judg. i. 35), Gezer (ib. i. 29), Chephirah, and Kirjath-jearim (Josh. ix. 17) remained Canaanite. This evidence clearly influences the history of Saul as well as the interactions between Judah and Benjamin that David’s early history suggests. Therefore, it has been speculated that David’s original home was in the south. Since the early historical narrative (1 Sam. xxv. 2) places him in Maon, Winckler has suggested he was a Calebite chief, while a critique of the details regarding David’s family led Marquart15 to propose that he was born at Arad (Tell ‘Arād), about 17 miles southeast of Hebron. At one point, he is indeed found in the wilderness of Paran (1 Sam. xxv. 1; the LXX reads Maon), and a more southern origin has been considered (Winckler). This connects to other views on the early history of the Israelites; see further below.

David owed his success to his troop of freebooters (1 Sam. xxii. 2), now an organized force, and absolutely attached to his person. The valour of these “mighty men” (gibbōrīm) was topical. The names of the most honoured are Capture of Jerusalem. preserved, and we have some interesting accounts of their exploits in the days of the giants (2 Sam. xxi., xxiii.). We hear of two great battles with the “Philistines” in the valley of Rephaim, near Jerusalem, at a time when David’s base was Adullam (v. 17-25). In one conflict a giant thought to slay him, but he was saved by Abishai, the brother of Joab, and the men took an oath that David should no more go to battle lest he “quench the light of Israel.” On another occasion, Elhanan of Bethlehem slew the giant Goliath of Gath, and David’s own brother Shimei (or Shammah) overthrew a monster who could boast of twenty-four fingers and toes. In yet another incident the Philistines maintained a garrison in Bethlehem, and David expressed a wish for a drink from its well. The wish was gratified at the risk of the lives of three brave men, and he recognized the solemnity of the occasion by pouring out the water as an offering unto Yahweh.

David owed his success to his group of mercenaries (1 Sam. xxii. 2), who were now a structured force completely loyal to him. The bravery of these “mighty men” (gibbōrīm) was well-known. The names of the most distinguished among them are preserved, and we have some fascinating stories of their deeds during the times of the giants (2 Sam. xxi., xxiii.). We learn of two significant battles with the “Philistines” in the valley of Rephaim, near Jerusalem, when David’s base was in Adullam (v. 17-25). In one battle, a giant attempted to kill him, but he was saved by Abishai, Joab's brother, and the men swore that David would no longer go into battle so that he would not “quench the light of Israel.” On another occasion, Elhanan from Bethlehem killed the giant Goliath from Gath, and David’s own brother Shimei (or Shammah) defeated a giant who had twenty-four fingers and toes. In another event, the Philistines held a stronghold in Bethlehem, and David expressed a desire for a drink from its well. Three brave men risked their lives to fulfill his wish, and he honored the moment by pouring out the water as an offering to Yahweh.

From a later summary (viii. 1) it seems that the Philistines were at length vanquished, and the unknown Metheg-Ammah taken out of their hands.16 Not until the district was cleared could Jerusalem be taken, and the capture of the almost impregnable Jebusite fortress furnished a centre for future action. Here, in the midst of a region which had been held by aliens, he fortified the “city of David” and garrisoned it with his men. Meanwhile the ark of Yahweh, the only sanctuary of national significance, had remained in obscurity since its return from the Philistines in the early youth of Samuel. (See Ark.) David brought it up from Baalah of Judah with great pomp, and pitched a tent for it in Zion, amidst national rejoicings. The narrative (2 Sam. vi.) represents the act as that of a loyal and God-fearing heart which knew that the true principle of Israel’s unity and strength lay in national adherence to Yahweh; but the event was far from having the significance which later times ascribed to it (1 Chron. xiii., xv. sqq.); even Solomon visited the sanctuary at Gibeon, and Absalom vowed his vow unto Yahweh at Hebron. It was not unnatural that the king who had his palace built by Tyrian artists should have proposed to erect a permanent temple to Yahweh. Such, at least, was the thought of later writers, who have given effect to the belief in chap. viii. It was said that the prophet Nathan commanded the execution of this plan to be delayed for a generation; but David received at the same time a prophetic assurance that his house and kingdom should be established for ever before Yahweh.

From a later summary (viii. 1), it seems that the Philistines were finally defeated, and the unknown Metheg-Ammah was taken from them. Not until the area was cleared could Jerusalem be captured, and taking the nearly impregnable Jebusite fortress provided a base for future actions. Here, in a region that had been controlled by outsiders, he fortified the “city of David” and stationed his men there. Meanwhile, the ark of Yahweh, the only sanctuary of national importance, had remained hidden since its return from the Philistines during Samuel’s early years. (See Ark.) David brought it up from Baalah of Judah with great celebration and set up a tent for it in Zion, amidst national festivities. The account (2 Sam. vi.) depicts this act as the work of a loyal and God-fearing heart, which understood that true unity and strength for Israel lay in its commitment to Yahweh. However, the event didn’t hold the significance later generations attributed to it (1 Chron. xiii., xv. sqq.); even Solomon visited the sanctuary at Gibeon, and Absalom made his vow to Yahweh at Hebron. It wasn’t surprising that the king, whose palace was built by Tyrian craftsmen, would want to build a permanent temple for Yahweh. At least, that was the view of later writers, who reflected this belief in chapter viii. It was said that the prophet Nathan instructed that this plan be postponed for a generation; however, David simultaneously received a prophetic assurance that his house and kingdom would be established forever before Yahweh.

What remains to be said of his internal policy may be briefly detailed. In civil matters the king looked heedfully to the execution of justice (viii. 15), and was always accessible to the people (xiv. 4). But he does not appear to have Internal policy. made any change in the old local administration of justice, or to have appointed a central tribunal (xv. 2, where, however, Absalom’s complaint that the king was inaccessible is merely factious). A few great officers of state were appointed at the court of Jerusalem (viii. 16-18, xx. 23-26), which was not without a splendour hitherto unknown in Israel. Royal pensioners, of whom Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth was one, were gathered round a princely table. The art of music was not neglected (xix. 35). A more dangerous piece of magnificence was the harem. Another innovation was the census; it was undertaken despite the protests of Joab, and was checked by the rebukes of the prophet Gad and the visitation of a pestilence (xxiv.). Striking, too, is the conception of the national God who incites the king to do an act for which he was to be punished.17 To us, the proposal to number the people seems innocent and 857 laudable, and the latest sources of the Pentateuch contain several such lists. This new procedure, we may imagine, was resented by the northern Hebrews as an encroachment upon their liberties. We learn that the destroying angel was stayed at the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite,18 and the spot thus sanctified was made a sanctuary, and commemorated by an altar. It was the very place upon which Solomon’s temple was supposed to be founded. The census-taking may have been a preliminary to the great wars, but the latter, on the other hand, are obviously presupposed by the extent of his kingdom. For his wars a larger force than his early bodyguard was required, and the Chronicler gives an account of the way in which an army of nearly 300,000 was raised and held by David’s thirty heroes (1 Chron. xxvii.). It is certain at all events that no small body of soldiers would be needed, and this alone would imply that all Israel was by this time under his entire control.

What’s left to say about his internal policies can be summarized briefly. In civil matters, the king was diligent about upholding justice (viii. 15) and was always open to the people (xiv. 4). However, it seems he didn’t change the old local justice system or set up a central court (xv. 2, where Absalom's claim that the king was unreachable was just a political move). A few high-ranking officials were appointed at the Jerusalem court (viii. 16-18, xx. 23-26), which had a grandeur previously unseen in Israel. Royal pensioners, including Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, gathered around a royal table. The art of music was also given attention (xix. 35). A more troubling aspect of his luxury was the harem. Another change was the census; it was conducted despite Joab’s objections and faced criticism from the prophet Gad and the outbreak of a plague (xxiv.). Notably, the idea of a national God inspiring the king to commit an act for which he was punished is striking. To us, the idea of counting the people seems harmless and commendable, especially since the latest Pentateuch sources contain several such lists. This new process likely angered the northern Hebrews as an infringement on their freedoms. We learn that the destroying angel was halted at the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, and the site was made sacred and marked by an altar. It was the very spot where Solomon's temple was believed to be built. The census may have been a precursor to major wars, but those wars were clearly anticipated by the reach of his kingdom. For his military campaigns, a larger force than his initial bodyguard was necessary, and the Chronicler details how nearly 300,000 soldiers were recruited and organized by David’s thirty champions (1 Chron. xxvii.). It's clear that a significant military presence was required, which indicates that by this time, all of Israel was under his full control.

Apart from the Ammonite war, our sources are confined to a mere summary (viii.), which includes even the Amalekites (viii. 12, cf. i Sam. xxx.). After the defeat of the Philistines came the turn of Moab. It was under the Wars and conquests. care of the king of Moab that David placed his parents when he fled from Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 3 sqq.), and what led to the war is unknown. The severity with which the land was treated may pass for a gentle reprisal if the Moabites of that day were not more humane than their descendants in the days of King Mesha.19 A deadly conflict with the Ammonites was provoked by a gross insult to friendly ambassadors of Israel;20 and this war, of which we have pretty full details in 2 Sam. x. i-xi. 1, xii. 26-31, assumed unexpected dimensions when the Ammonites procured the aid of their Aramean neighbours. The defeat of Hadadezer brought about the submission of other lesser kings. The glory of this victory was increased by the complete subjugation of Edom in a war conducted by Joab with characteristic severity (2 Sam. viii. 13; 1 Kings xi. 15-17; Ps. lx., title). The fall of Rabbah concludes David’s war-like exploits; he carried off the jewelled crown of their god (Milcom), and subjected the people, not to torture (1 Chron. xx. 3), but to severe menial labour (xii. 26-31).

Besides the Ammonite war, our sources only provide a brief overview (viii.), which even mentions the Amalekites (viii. 12, cf. 1 Sam. xxx.). After defeating the Philistines, Moab became the next target. David entrusted his parents to the king of Moab when he was fleeing from Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 3 sqq.), but the reasons for the war are unclear. The harsh treatment of the land could be seen as a mild retaliation, assuming the Moabites of that time were not more brutal than their descendants in the era of King Mesha. A fierce conflict with the Ammonites was triggered by a severe insult to Israel's friendly ambassadors; and this war, which we have detailed accounts of in 2 Sam. x. i-xi. 1, xii. 26-31, escalated unexpectedly when the Ammonites sought help from their Aramean neighbors. The defeat of Hadadezer led to the submission of other smaller kings. The glory of this victory was enhanced by the complete conquest of Edom in a war led by Joab with notable brutality (2 Sam. viii. 13; 1 Kings xi. 15-17; Ps. lx., title). The fall of Rabbah marks the end of David’s military endeavors; he took away the jeweled crown of their god (Milcom) and imposed severe labor on the people, rather than torture (1 Chron. xx. 3) (xii. 26-31).

The Aramean states, Beth-rehob, Maacah, Tob, &c., lay partly to the north of Gilead and partly in the region which was the scene of the fight with Jabin (Josh. xi. 1-9, Judg. iv.; see Deborah). Apparently it was here, too, that the Danites found a settlement (Judg. xviii. 28); the migration has perhaps been ante-dated. (See Dan, tribe.) The account of David’s wars is remarkable for the inclusion of the Syrians of Damascus and beyond the Euphrates; some exaggeration has been suspected (cf. 2 Sam. viii. 5 with x. 16). Some misunderstanding has been caused by the confusion of Edom (אדם) and Aram (ארם) in viii. 13. A more moderate idea of David’s power has been found in Ps. lx. 6-12, or, preferably, in the description of the boundaries (2 Sam. xxiv. 5 sqq.). To the east of the Jordan he held rule from Aroer to Gad and Gilead; on its west his power extended from Beersheba in the south to Dan and Ijon at the foot of Hermon. Moab, Ammon and Edom would appear to have been merely tributary, whilst in the north among his allies David could number the king of Hamath. To the north-west Israel bordered upon Tyre, with whom its relations were friendly. The king of Tyre, who recognized David’s newly won position (v. 11 seq.), is called Hiram; possibly—unless the notice is an anticipation of 1 Kings v.—his father Abibaal is meant.21

The Aramean states, Beth-rehob, Maacah, Tob, etc., were located partly to the north of Gilead and partly in the area where the battle with Jabin took place (Josh. xi. 1-9, Judg. iv.; see Deborah). It seems that this is also where the Danites established a settlement (Judg. xviii. 28); the migration might have been dated incorrectly. (See Dan, tribe.) The account of David's wars notably includes the Syrians from Damascus and beyond the Euphrates; there has been some suspicion of exaggeration (cf. 2 Sam. viii. 5 with x. 16). Confusion between Edom (אדם) and Aram (ארם) in viii. 13 has caused some misunderstandings. A more balanced view of David's power can be found in Ps. lx. 6-12, or preferably, in the description of the boundaries (2 Sam. xxiv. 5 sqq.). To the east of the Jordan, he ruled from Aroer to Gad and Gilead; to the west, his influence extended from Beersheba in the south to Dan and Ijon at the foot of Hermon. Moab, Ammon, and Edom seem to have been merely tributary states, while among his allies in the north, David could count the king of Hamath. In the northwest, Israel bordered on Tyre, with which it had friendly relations. The king of Tyre, who acknowledged David's newly acquired status (v. 11 seq.), is named Hiram; possibly—unless this reference anticipates 1 Kings v.—his father Abibaal is meant.21

As the birth of Solomon is placed before the capture of Rabbah of Ammon (xii.), it would appear that David’s wars were ended within the first half of his reign at Jerusalem, and the tributary nations thus do not seem to have attempted Internal troubles. any revolt during his lifetime (see 1 Kings xi. 14 sqq. and 25). It was only when the nation was no longer knit together by the fear of danger from without that the internal difficulties of the new kingdom became more manifest. Such at least is the impression which the narratives convey.22 So, after David had completed a series of conquests which made Palestine the greatest of the petty states of the age, troubles arose with the Israelites, who in times past had sought for him to be king (iii. 17, v. 1-3), with his old subjects the men of Judah, and with the members of his own household. The northern tribes, who appear to have submitted willingly to his rule, were not all of one mind. There were men of stronger build than the weak Ishbaal and the crippled son of Jonathan, the survivors of Saul’s house, and it is only to be expected that David’s first care must have been to cement the union of the north and south. The choice of Jerusalem, standing on neutral ground, may be regarded as a stroke of genius, and there is nothing to show that the king exercised that rigour which was to be the cause of his grandson’s undoing. (See Rehoboam.) On the other hand, when Sheba, probably one of Saul’s clan, headed a rising and was promptly pursued by Joab to Abel-beth-maacah on the west of Dan, honour was satisfied by the death of the rebel, and no further steps were taken (xx.).23 This policy of leniency towards Israel is characteristic of David, and may well have become a popular theme in the tales of succeeding generations. This same magnanimity towards the survivors of Saul’s house has left its mark upon many of the narratives, and helps to a truer understanding of the stories of his early life. Thus it was quite in keeping with the romantic attachment between David and Saul’s son Jonathan that when he became king of Israel he took Jonathan’s son Meribbaal under his care (ix.).24 The deed was not merely generous, it was politic to have Saul’s grandson under his eyes. The hope of restoring the lost kingdom had not died out (cf. xvi. 3). But from another source we gain quite a different idea of the relations. A disastrous famine ravaged the land for three long years, and when Yahweh was consulted the reply came that there was “blood upon Saul and upon his house because he put the Gibeonites to death.” The unavenged blood was the cause of divine anger, and retribution must be made. This David recognized, and, summoning the injured clan, inquired what expiation could be made. Bloodshed could only be atoned by blood-money or by shedding the blood of the offender or of his family. The Gibeonites demanded the latter, and five sons of Merab (the text by a mistake reads Michal) and two sons of Saul’s concubine were sacrificed. The awful deed took place at the beginning of harvest (April-May), and the bodies remained suspended until, with the advent of the autumn rains, Yahweh was once more reconciled to his land (xxi. 1-14). The incident is a valuable picture of crude ideas of Yahweh, and, if nothing else were needed, it was sufficient to involve David in a feud with the Benjamites.25 Here, too, we learn of the tardy burial of the bones of Saul and Jonathan which had remained in Jabesh-Gilead since the battle of Gilboa;—the history of David’s dealings with the family of Saul has been obscured. That he took over his harem is only in accordance with the Eastern policy (cf. xii. 8).

As Solomon's birth is noted before the capture of Rabbah of Ammon (xii.), it seems that David’s wars ended during the first half of his reign in Jerusalem, and the neighboring nations didn’t seem to try to revolt during his lifetime (see 1 Kings xi. 14 sqq. and 25). It was only when the nation was no longer united by the fear of external threats that the internal struggles of the new kingdom became more apparent. At least, that’s the impression conveyed by the narratives. After David completed a series of conquests that made Palestine the most prominent among the small states of the time, troubles arose with the Israelites, who had previously wanted him as their king (iii. 17, v. 1-3), with his old subjects from Judah, and even within his own household. The northern tribes, which appeared to have accepted his rule, were not all united in their support. There were stronger individuals than the weak Ishbaal and the disabled son of Jonathan, the survivors from Saul’s family, and it was only natural that David’s primary concern was to strengthen the bond between the north and south. The decision to make Jerusalem the capital, located on neutral ground, can be seen as a stroke of genius, and there’s no indication that the king enforced the kind of harshness that would later lead to his grandson’s downfall. (See Rehoboam.) Conversely, when Sheba, likely from Saul’s family, led a rebellion and was quickly pursued by Joab to Abel-beth-maacah west of Dan, honor was satisfied with the rebel's death, and no further action was taken (xx.). This approach of leniency towards Israel is typical of David and likely became a popular theme in stories for future generations. His generosity towards the surviving members of Saul’s family is reflected in many narratives and aids in a better understanding of the accounts from his early life. Thus, it was consistent with the close bond between David and Saul’s son Jonathan that when he became king of Israel, he took Jonathan’s son Meribbaal under his protection (ix.). This action was not only generous but also politically wise to keep an eye on Saul’s grandson. The hope of restoring the lost kingdom had not faded (cf. xvi. 3). However, from another perspective, we get a contrasting idea of the relationships. A devastating famine struck the land for three years, and when Yahweh was consulted, the response was that there was “blood upon Saul and upon his house because he put the Gibeonites to death.” The unavenged blood provoked divine anger, and retribution was required. David understood this, and, calling the affected clan, he asked what restitution could be made. Bloodshed could only be atoned for with blood money or by spilling the blood of the offender or their family. The Gibeonites chose the latter, and five sons of Merab (the text mistakenly refers to Michal) and two sons of Saul’s concubine were executed. This horrific act occurred at the beginning of the harvest (April-May), and the bodies were left hanging until, with the arrival of the autumn rains, Yahweh was reconciled to his land once more (xxi. 1-14). This event paints a vivid picture of the primitive understanding of Yahweh, and was enough to entangle David in a conflict with the Benjamites. Here, too, we learn of the delayed burial of the bones of Saul and Jonathan, which had remained in Jabesh-Gilead since the battle of Gilboa; the history of David’s interactions with Saul’s family has been obscured. His appropriation of Saul's harem aligns with Eastern customs (cf. xii. 8).

The harem, an indispensable part of Eastern state, was responsible for many fatal disorders, although it is clear from 2 Sam. xvi. 21 that the nation at large was not very sensitive to the enormities which flow from this system. David’s Absalom’s revolt. deep fall in the matter of Bathsheba (xi.) was too great an iniquity to be passed over lightly, and the base murder of her 858 husband Uriah the Hittite could not go unavenged. Bathsheba’s influence added a new element of danger to the usual jealousies of the harem, and two of David’s sons perished in vain attempts to claim the throne, which she appears to have viewed as the rightful inheritance of her own child. This, at least, is certain in the revolt of Adonijah (see Solomon), and it was probably believed that the action of the impulsive Absalom arose from the suspicion that the birth of Solomon was the death-blow to his succession.

The harem, an essential part of Eastern state, was responsible for many serious issues, even though it’s clear from 2 Sam. xvi. 21 that the wider society wasn’t very sensitive to the problems that arise from this system. David’s deep moral failure regarding Bathsheba (xi.) was too significant to be overlooked, and the cold-blooded murder of her husband Uriah the Hittite couldn’t go unpunished. Bathsheba’s influence introduced a new level of danger to the usual rivalries of the harem, and two of David’s sons died in futile attempts to take the throne, which she seemed to consider the rightful inheritance for her own child. This is at least certain in the revolt of Adonijah (see Solomon), and it’s likely that it was thought that the actions of the impulsive Absalom stemmed from the suspicion that Solomon's birth was a major threat to his claim to succession.

As a piece of writing the vivid narratives are without an equal. David’s sons were estranged from one another, and acquired all the vices of Oriental princes. The severe impartiality of the sacred historian has concealed no feature in this dark picture,—the brutal passion of Amnon, the shameless counsel of the wily Jonadab, the “black scowl”26 that rested on the face of Absalom through two long years of meditated revenge, the panic of the court when the blow was struck and Amnon was assassinated in the midst of his brethren. Not until five years had elapsed was Absalom fully reconciled with his father. Then he meditated revolt. As heir-apparent he collected a bodyguard, and studiously courting personal popularity by a pretended interest in the administration of kingly justice, ingratiated himself with the mass. Four years later (so read in xv. 7) he ventured to raise the standard of revolt in Hebron, with the malcontent Judaeans as his first supporters, and the crafty Ahithophel as his chief adviser. Arrangements had been made for the simultaneous proclamation of Absalom in all parts of the land. The surprise was complete, and David was compelled to evacuate Jerusalem, where he might have been crushed before he had time to rally his faithful subjects. He was warmly received by the Gileadites, and the first battle destroyed the party of Absalom, who was himself captured and slain by Joab. Then all the people repented except the men of Judah, who were not to be conciliated without a virtual admission of prerogative of kinship to the king. This concession involved important consequences. The precedence claimed by Judah was challenged by the northern tribes even on the day of David’s victorious return to his capital, and a rupture ensued, headed by Sheba, which but for the energy of Joab might have led to a second and more dangerous rebellion.

As a piece of writing, the vivid narratives are unmatched. David’s sons were estranged from each other and picked up all the vices of Eastern princes. The strict impartiality of the sacred historian has revealed every detail in this dark story—the brutal desire of Amnon, the shameless advice of the cunning Jonadab, the “black scowl”26 that rested on Absalom’s face during two long years of planned revenge, the panic in the court when the attack happened and Amnon was killed among his brothers. It took five years for Absalom to be fully reconciled with his father. After that, he plotted a revolt. As the heir apparent, he gathered a bodyguard and gained popularity with the masses by pretending to be interested in the administration of royal justice. Four years later (as noted in xv. 7) he dared to raise the banner of revolt in Hebron, with the discontented Judeans as his first supporters and the cunning Ahithophel as his chief advisor. Arrangements had been made for the simultaneous proclamation of Absalom across the land. The surprise was total, and David was forced to leave Jerusalem, where he could have been overwhelmed before he had a chance to regroup his loyal subjects. He was warmly welcomed by the Gileadites, and the first battle wiped out Absalom’s forces, who was captured and killed by Joab. Then everyone regretted their actions except the men of Judah, who wouldn’t be won over without a clear acknowledgment of their kinship to the king. This concession had significant implications. The precedence claimed by Judah was contested by the northern tribes even on the day of David’s triumphant return to his capital, leading to a split led by Sheba, which, but for Joab's determination, could have resulted in a second and more dangerous rebellion.

Several indications suggest that the revolt was one in which the men of Judah originally took the leading if not the only part. The unruly clans which David knew how to control when he was at Ziklag or Hebron were doubtless ready to support the rebellious son. The removal of the court to Jerusalem provided a suitable opportunity, and an element of jealousy even may not have been wanting. If Geshur be the district in Josh. xiii. 2, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, it is significant that the scene of Absalom’s exile lay to the south, that Ahithophel was a south Judaean, and that Amasa probably belonged to the Jezreel27 with which David was connected through his wife Ahinoam. The eleven years which elapsed between the murder of Amnon and the revolt would seem to disprove any connexion between the two; the chronology may rest upon the tradition that Solomon was twelve years old when he came to the throne. David’s hurried flight, attended only by his bodyguard, indicates that his position was not a very strong one, and it is difficult to connect this with the fact that he had already waged the wars mentioned in 2 Sam. viii. and x. If his reason for taking refuge in Ishbaal’s capital Mahanaim is not obvious, it is even more remarkable that he should have been received kindly by the Ammonites whom he had previously decimated. On the theory that the revolt of Absalom chronologically should precede the great wars, a slight correction of the already corrupt text in xvii. 27 makes Nahash himself David’s ally, and accounts for David’s eagerness to repay to Hanun, the son of Nahash, the kindness which he had received from the father (x. 2). That the revolt of Sheba is in an impossible position is obvious. Tradition has probably confused Benjamite risings with Absalom’s misguided enterprise; the parts played by Shimei and Meribbaal, at all events, are extremely suggestive. See Absalom, Ahithophel.

Several signs point to the idea that the uprising was primarily led by the men of Judah, if not entirely. The unruly groups that David managed to keep in check during his time in Ziklag or Hebron were likely ready to support his rebellious son. Moving the court to Jerusalem created a perfect opportunity for this, and there may have been some underlying jealousy as well. If Geshur refers to the region in Josh. xiii. 2 and 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, it’s noteworthy that Absalom's exile took place to the south, Ahithophel was from southern Judah, and Amasa probably belonged to Jezreel, which David was connected to through his wife Ahinoam. The eleven years between Amnon's murder and the revolt seem to indicate no connection between the two; the timeline might depend on the tradition that Solomon was twelve when he became king. David's quick escape with only his bodyguard shows that his situation wasn't very secure, making it hard to reconcile this with the fact that he had already fought the wars mentioned in 2 Sam. viii. and x. If it’s unclear why he sought refuge in Ishbaal’s capital Mahanaim, it’s even more surprising that the Ammonites, whom he had previously devastated, welcomed him. If we assume Absalom's revolt came before the major wars chronologically, a minor adjustment to the already flawed text in xvii. 27 suggests Nahash was actually an ally of David, which would explain David's eagerness to repay Hanun, Nahash's son, for the kindness shown by his father (x. 2). The revolt of Sheba seems to be in a complicated position. Tradition has likely muddled the Benjamite uprisings with Absalom's ill-fated effort; the roles of Shimei and Meribbaal are certainly very telling. See Absalom, Ahithophel.

The Appendix ascribes to David a song of triumph and some exceedingly obscure “last words” (xxii.-xxiii. 7) which cannot be used as historical material. The history of his life is immediately continued in 1 Kings i., where his old David’s life-work. age and weakness are for the first time vividly emphasized. The events of the remaining years after 2 Sam. xx. are left untold, but the Chronicler omits the revolt of Absalom and represents the king as busily occupied with schemes concerning the future temple. The last spark of his old energy was called forth to secure the succession of Solomon against the ambition of Adonijah. It is noteworthy that, as in the case of Absalom, the pretender, though supported by Joab and Abiathar, found his chief stay among the men of Judah (1 Kings i. 9). (See Solomon.)

The Appendix attributes a song of victory to David along with some very obscure "last words" (xxii.-xxiii. 7) that can't be used as reliable historical evidence. His life's story continues immediately in 1 Kings i., where his old age and frailty are highlighted for the first time. The events of the years following 2 Sam. xx. are left untold, but the Chronicler skips over the revolt of Absalom and shows the king as being actively involved in plans for the future temple. The last bit of his old strength was used to ensure Solomon's succession against Adonijah's ambitions. It’s interesting to note that, similar to Absalom, the pretender, who had support from Joab and Abiathar, found his main backing among the men of Judah (1 Kings i. 9). (See Solomon.)

To estimate the work of David it is necessary to take into account the situation before and after his period. According to the prevailing traditions, Saul at his death had left North Israel disunited and humiliated. From this condition David raised the land to the highest state of prosperity and glory, and by his conquests made the united kingdom the most powerful state of the age. To do this other qualities than mere military capacity were required. David was not only a great captain, he was a national hero in whom all the noblest elements of the Hebrew genius were combined. His talent enabled him to weld together the mixed southern clans which became incorporated under Judah, and to build up a monarchy which represented the highest conception of national life possible under the circumstances. The structure, it is true, was not permanent. Under his successor it began to decay, and in the next generation it fell asunder and lived only in the hearts of the people as the proudest memory of past history and the prophetic ideal of future glory.28 Opinion will differ, however, as to the extent to which later ideals have influenced the narratives upon which the student of Hebrew history and religion is dependent, and how far the reigns of David and Solomon altered the face of Hebrew history. The foundation of the united monarchy was the greatest advance in the whole course of the history of the Israelites, and around it have been collected the hopes and fears which a varied experience of monarchical government aroused. Many of the narratives furnish a vivid picture of the life of David with a minuteness of personal detail which has suggested to some that their author was intimately acquainted with the events, and, if not a contemporary, belonged to the succeeding generation, while to others it has seemed more probable that these reflect rather “the plastic mould of popular tradition.” It cannot be doubted that the three types of David, represented by the books of Samuel, of Chronicles, and the superscriptions of the Psalms, are irreconcilable, and that they represent successive developments of the original traditions. That the oldest of these three does not contain earlier attempts to idealize him is unlikely. “Political circumstances naturally led to an ever-increasing appreciation of his person and his work as the unifier of Israel. In the eyes of posterity he became more and more completely the model of an Israelitish king and the natural consequence was that he was idealized. The hope of the regeneration of his dynasty, and, at a later period, of its restoration to the throne—the Messianic expectation—must have worked powerfully in the same direction. And meanwhile the religious convictions of the highest minds in Israel were undergoing a marked change. The conceptions of Yahweh and of the religion which was acceptable to him were constantly being elevated and purified. This could not but have an influence on the current ideas concerning David. He, too, must be remodelled as the conceptions of God were changed.”29 But what is lost as regards historical material is a distinct gain to the study of the development of Hebrew thought and philosophy of history.

To evaluate David's achievements, we must consider the situation before and after his time. At his death, Saul left northern Israel fragmented and degraded. From this state, David lifted the nation to its peak of prosperity and honor, turning the united kingdom into the most powerful state of the era through his conquests. Achieving this required more than just military skill. David was not only a great leader; he was a national hero who embodied all the finest qualities of the Hebrew spirit. His abilities allowed him to unite the various southern clans into Judah and to establish a monarchy that represented the best possible version of national life under the circumstances. Admittedly, this structure was not permanent. Under his successor, it began to weaken, and in the following generation, it fell apart, existing only in the hearts of the people as the proudest memory of their past and the hopeful vision of future greatness.28 Opinions will vary on how much later ideals have shaped the stories that historians and scholars of Hebrew history and religion rely on, and how significantly the reigns of David and Solomon altered Hebrew history's trajectory. The establishment of the united monarchy marked the greatest leap forward in the history of the Israelites, carrying with it the hopes and fears brought on by varied experiences of monarchy. Many of the stories paint a vivid picture of David's life, rich with personal detail, leading some to believe the author was closely familiar with the events, and, if not a contemporary, belonged to the following generation. Others think it more likely that these narratives reflect “the flexible mold of popular tradition.” It is undeniable that the three versions of David—illustrated by the books of Samuel, Chronicles, and the titles of the Psalms—are conflicting and represent successive developments of the original stories. It's unlikely that the oldest version doesn't contain some early attempts to idealize him. “Political circumstances naturally led to an ever-increasing appreciation of his person and his work as the unifier of Israel. In the view of later generations, he became increasingly seen as the model of an Israelite king, and the natural outcome was his idealization. The hope for the revival of his dynasty, and later, its restoration to power—the Messianic expectation—must have strongly influenced this process. Meanwhile, the spiritual beliefs of Israel's greatest thinkers were undergoing significant changes. The ideas of Yahweh and the religion acceptable to Him were constantly being elevated and refined. This inevitably impacted the prevailing views of David. He, too, had to be reshaped as ideas about God transformed.”29 However, while historical material may be lost, it significantly benefits the study of Hebrew thought and philosophy of history.

David’s character must be judged partly in the light of the times in which he lived and partly in connexion with the great truths which he represents, truths whose value is not impaired should they prove to be the convictions of later ages. Accordingly, David is not to be condemned for failing to subdue the sensuality which is the chief stain on his character, but should rather be judged by his habitual recognition of a generous standard of conduct, by the undoubted purity and lofty justice of an administration which was never stained by selfish considerations or motives of personal rancour,30 and finally by the calm 859 courage which enabled him to hold an even and noble course in the face of dangers and treachery. His great sin in the matter of Uriah would have been forgotten but for his repentance: the things at which modern ideas are most offended are not always those that would have given umbrage to early writers. That he did not reform at a stroke all ancient abuses appears particularly in relation to the practice of blood revenge; to put an end to this deep-rooted custom would have been an impossibility. But it is clear from 2 Sam. iii. 28 sqq., xiv. 1-10, that his sympathies were against the barbarous usage. Nor is it just to accuse him of cruelty in his treatment of enemies. As it was impossible to establish a military cordon along the borders of Canaan, it was necessary absolutely to cripple the adjoining tribes. From the lust of conquest for its own sake David appears to have been wholly free.

David's character should be evaluated partly in the context of the times he lived in and partly in relation to the important truths he represents—truths whose significance remains intact even if they become the beliefs of future generations. Therefore, we shouldn’t condemn David for failing to overcome the sensuality that marked his character. Instead, he should be judged by his consistent adherence to a generous standard of conduct, the undeniable purity and high justice of his leadership, which was never tainted by selfish interests or personal grudges, 30 and finally by the steady courage that allowed him to navigate difficult times and treachery with dignity. His major sin regarding Uriah would likely have been overlooked if not for his repentance: the actions that offend modern sensibilities are not always those that would have troubled earlier writers. That he did not eliminate all ancient injustices in one go is especially evident regarding the practice of blood revenge; ending such a deep-seated tradition would have been impossible. However, it’s clear from 2 Sam. iii. 28 sqq., xiv. 1-10, that he sympathized with those opposed to this brutal practice. It's also unfair to accuse him of cruelty in how he treated his enemies. Since establishing a military barrier along Canaan's borders was impractical, it was crucial to significantly weaken the neighboring tribes. David seems completely free from the desire to conquer simply for conquest's sake.

The generous elevation of David’s character is seen most clearly in those parts of his life where an inferior nature would have been most at fault,—in his conduct towards Saul, in the blameless reputation of himself and his band of outlaws in the wilderness of Judah, in his repentance under the rebuke of Nathan and in his noble bearing on the revolt of Absalom. His touching love for his worthless son is one of the most beautiful descriptions of paternal affection. His unfailing insight into character, and his power of winning men’s hearts and touching their better impulses, appear in innumerable traits (e.g. 2 Sam. xiv. 18-20, iii. 31-37, xxiii. 15-17), and here, as elsewhere, the charm which the life of David has upon its readers is entirely unaffected by technical questions of literary and historical criticism.

The great qualities of David’s character are most evident in the moments of his life where a lesser person would have failed—like in how he treated Saul, the unblemished reputation he maintained with his group of outlaws in the wilderness of Judah, his sincere repentance after Nathan’s confrontation, and his dignified response during Absalom’s rebellion. His deep love for his unworthy son is one of the most touching examples of a father’s affection. His keen understanding of people and his ability to connect with others and inspire their better instincts come through in countless instances (e.g. 2 Sam. xiv. 18-20, iii. 31-37, xxiii. 15-17), and here, just like anywhere else, the appeal of David’s life to its readers remains unaffected by any intricate issues of literary and historical criticism.

To the later generations David was pre-eminently the Psalmist and the founder of the Temple service. The Hebrew titles ascribe to him seventy-three psalms; the Septuagint adds some fifteen more; and later opinion, both Jewish Growth of tradition. and Christian, claimed for him the authorship of the whole Psalter (so the Talmud, Augustine and others). That the tradition of the titles requires careful sifting is no longer doubted, and the results of recent criticism have been to confirm the view that “it is no longer possible to treat the psalms as a record of David’s spiritual life through all the steps of his chequered career” (W. R. Smith, Old Test. in Jew. Church², p. 224). Nor can it be maintained that the elaborate ritual ascribed to David by the chronicler has any historical value. See further Chronicles, Psalms.

To later generations, David is primarily seen as the Psalmist and the founder of the Temple service. The Hebrew titles attribute seventy-three psalms to him; the Septuagint adds about fifteen more; and later views, both Jewish Tradition growth. and Christian, claimed that he authored the entire Psalter (as noted by the Talmud, Augustine, and others). It is widely accepted now that the tradition surrounding the titles needs careful analysis, and recent critical studies have confirmed the perspective that “it is no longer possible to treat the psalms as a record of David’s spiritual life through all the steps of his varied career” (W. R. Smith, Old Test. in Jew. Church², p. 224). Also, the complex ritual attributed to David by the chronicler cannot be considered historically valid. For more, see Chronicles, Psalms.

On the other hand, these traditions, however unhistorical in their present form, cannot be pure imagination. The male and female singers (if the reading be correct) whom Sennacherib carried off from Jerusalem in Hezekiah’s time, may well have belonged to an old foundation (A. Jeremias, Alte Test. im Lichte d. Alten Orients², p. 527), and though David’s skill referred to in Amos vi. 5 may be due to a gloss, it is a Judaean narrative which tells of the invention of music, ascribing it possibly to a Judaean legendary hero (Gen. iv. 21). And although the Levitical organization, as ascribed to David, is manifestly post-exilic, it is at least certain that many of the Levitical families were of southern origin. It is in David’s history that the clans of the south first attained prominence, and some of them are known to have been staunch upholders of a purer worship of Yahweh, or to have been associated with the introduction of religious institutions among the Israelites. (See Levites.)

On the other hand, these traditions, no matter how historically inaccurate they seem now, can’t be just a figment of imagination. The male and female singers (if that reading is correct) whom Sennacherib took from Jerusalem during Hezekiah’s time likely had some connection to an old tradition (A. Jeremias, Alte Test. im Lichte d. Alten Orients², p. 527). Even though the mention of David's skill in Amos 6:5 might be an addition, it’s still a Judean story that talks about the invention of music, possibly attributed to a legendary Judean figure (Gen. 4:21). And while the Levitical organization credited to David clearly came after the exile, it’s at least certain that many of the Levitical families originated from the south. It’s in David’s history that the southern clans first stood out, and some of them are known to have been strong supporters of a more authentic worship of Yahweh or to have played a role in establishing religious institutions among the Israelites. (See Levites.)

The difficulty of the historical problems increases when the narratives of David are more closely studied: (a) 2 Sam. iii. 18, xix. 9 show that according to one view David delivered Israel (not Judah) from the Philistines. This is in contradiction to ii. 8 sqq. (from another source), where Saul’s son recovers Israelite territory, but is supported by ix., where Mephibosheth is found at Lo-debar. This historical view has probably left its trace upon the present traditions of Saul, whose defeat by the “Philistines” (here found in the north and not as usual in the south) left Israel in much the same position as when he was anointed king (cf. 1 Sam. xxxi. 7 with xiii. 7). Again (b) the primitive stories of conflicts with “Philistine” giants between Hebron and Jerusalem (2 Sam. v. 17 sqq., xxi. 15 sqq. and xxiii.) find their analogy in Caleb’s overthrow of the sons of Anak (Judg. i. 10; Josh. xv. 14), and in the allusion to the same prehistoric folk in the account of the spies (Num. xiii. 28). From a number of points of evidence there appears to have been a group of traditions of a movement from the south (probably Kadesh, Num. xiii. 26) associated with Caleb, David and the Levites. If the clans of Moses’ kin which moved into Judah bore the ark (Num. x. 29 sqq.; see Kenites), and if Abiathar carried it before David (1 Kings ii. 26), there were traditions of the ark distinct from those which associate it with Joshua and Shiloh (cf. 2 Sam. vii. 6). But the stories of conflicts in a much larger area than the few cities in the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem (see above) can scarcely be read with the numerous narratives which recount or imply relations between the young David of Bethlehem and Saul or the Israelites. It is possible, therefore, that one early account of David was that of an entrance into the land of Judah, and that round him have gathered traditions partly individual and partly tribal or national. See further S. A. Cook, Critical Notes on O.T. History, pp. 122 sqq., and art. Jews (History), §§ 6-8.

The complexity of the historical issues grows when we examine the stories of David more closely: (a) 2 Sam. iii. 18, xix. 9 suggest that according to one perspective, David rescued Israel (not Judah) from the Philistines. This contradicts ii. 8 sqq. (from another source), where Saul’s son reclaims Israelite land, but it aligns with ix., where Mephibosheth is found at Lo-debar. This historical interpretation has likely influenced the current traditions regarding Saul, whose defeat by the “Philistines” (noted here in the north instead of the usual south) left Israel in a similar position to when he was anointed king (cf. 1 Sam. xxxi. 7 with xiii. 7). Again, (b) the early stories of battles with “Philistine” giants between Hebron and Jerusalem (2 Sam. v. 17 sqq., xxi. 15 sqq. and xxiii.) are comparable to Caleb’s defeat of the sons of Anak (Judg. i. 10; Josh. xv. 14), and there’s a reference to these same ancient people in the spies' account (Num. xiii. 28). Numerous pieces of evidence indicate the existence of a group of traditions about a movement from the south (likely Kadesh, Num. xiii. 26) connected with Caleb, David, and the Levites. If the clans of Moses’ relatives that settled in Judah carried the ark (Num. x. 29 sqq.; see Kenites), and if Abiathar brought it before David (1 Kings ii. 26), there were traditions regarding the ark that differ from those linking it to Joshua and Shiloh (cf. 2 Sam. vii. 6). However, the stories of conflicts occurring over a much larger area than just a few cities near Jerusalem (see above) can hardly be reconciled with the many narratives that recount or imply interactions between the young David of Bethlehem and Saul or the Israelites. Therefore, it’s possible that one early story about David was his entry into the land of Judah, and that around him, traditions—some individual and some tribal or national—have developed. See further S. A. Cook, Critical Notes on O.T. History, pp. 122 sqq., and art. Jews (History), §§ 6-8.

Literature.—Robertson Smith’s later views subsequent to 1877 (when he wrote the article on David for this Encyclopaedia) were expressed partly in the Old Test. in Jewish Church (1881 and 1892), passim, and partly in the article on the Books of Samuel in the Ency. Brit. (9th ed.); on David’s character see especially his criticism of Renan, Eng. Hist. Rev., 1888, pp. 134 sqq. Mention may be made of Stähelin’s Leben Davids (Basel, 1866), still valuable for the numerous parallels adduced from oriental history; Cheyne’s Aids to Devout Study of Criticism (1892), a criticism of David’s history in its bearing upon religion; Marcel Dieulafoy, David the King (1902), full, but not critical; H. A. White, Hastings’ Dict. art. “David”; Cheyne, Ency. Bib. art. “David”; and (on the romantic element in the narratives) Luther in Ed. Meyer, Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme (1906), pp. 181 sqq.

Literature.—Robertson Smith’s later views after 1877 (when he wrote the article on David for this Encyclopaedia) were expressed partly in the Old Test. in Jewish Church (1881 and 1892), passim, and partly in the article on the Books of Samuel in the Ency. Brit. (9th ed.); for insights on David’s character, see especially his critique of Renan, Eng. Hist. Rev., 1888, pp. 134 sqq. Also noteworthy is Stähelin’s Leben Davids (Basel, 1866), which remains valuable for the numerous parallels drawn from oriental history; Cheyne’s Aids to Devout Study of Criticism (1892), a critique of David’s history in its relation to religion; Marcel Dieulafoy, David the King (1902), comprehensive but not critical; H. A. White, Hastings’ Dict. art. “David”; Cheyne, Ency. Bib. art. “David”; and (on the romantic element in the narratives) Luther in Ed. Meyer, Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme (1906), pp. 181 sqq.

(W. R. S.; S. A. C.)

1 See further the third edition of Schrader’s Keilinschr. u. das Alte Test. pp. 225, 483.

1 Check out the third edition of Schrader’s Keilinschr. u. das Alte Test. pp. 225, 483.

2 But four in xvii. 13 sqq., and seven in 1 Chron. ii. 13-15.

2 But four in xvii. 13 sqq., and seven in 1 Chron. ii. 13-15.

3 An armour-bearer was not a full warrior but a sort of page or apprentice-in-arms, whose most warlike function is to kill outright those whom his master has struck down—an office which among the Arabs was often performed by women.

3 An armor-bearer wasn't a full warrior but more like a squire or apprentice in combat, whose main job was to finish off anyone his master had already injured— a role that was often taken on by women among the Arabs.

4 See Samuel. The older history repeatedly indicates that David’s kingship was predicted by a divine oracle, but would hardly lead us to place the prediction so early (1 Sam. xxv. 30; 2 Sam. iii. 9, v. 2).

4 See Samuel. The earlier accounts consistently suggest that a divine oracle foretold David’s reign, but it’s unlikely that we should assign this prediction to such an early date (1 Sam. xxv. 30; 2 Sam. iii. 9, v. 2).

5 The LXX omits xviii. 1-6 (to “Philistine”), the first and last clauses of 8, 10-11, the reason given for Saul’s fear in 12, 17-19, the second half of 21. It also modifies 28, and omits the second half of 29 and the whole of 30.

5 The LXX leaves out xviii. 1-6 (up to “Philistine”), the first and last parts of 8, 10-11, the explanation for Saul’s fear in 12, 17-19, and the second half of 21. It also changes 28 and skips the second half of 29 and all of 30.

6 1 Sam. xix. 9. The parallel narrative, xviii. 10 sqq., is wanting in the Greek, and in the light of subsequent events is improbable. Its aim is to paint Saul’s character as black as possible.

6 1 Sam. xix. 9. The related story, xviii. 10 sqq., is missing in the Greek text, and considering what happened later, it doesn't seem likely. Its goal is to portray Saul's character in the worst possible light.

7 The close of ver. 10 in the Hebrew is corrupt, and the words “(and it came to pass) that night” seem to belong to the next verse (so the Greek). H. P. Smith suggests that the passage originally followed upon xviii. 27.

7 The end of verse 10 in the Hebrew text is unclear, and the phrase “(and it came to pass) that night” seems to fit better with the next verse (as the Greek suggests). H. P. Smith proposes that this passage originally followed chapter xviii, verse 27.

8 Wellhausen cites a closely parallel case from Sprenger’s Leben Muhammad, vol. ii. p. 543.

8 Wellhausen mentions a very similar case from Sprenger’s Leben Muhammad, vol. ii. p. 543.

9 On the meaning of this difficult passage, see the discussions by W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites(²), p. 455 sqq., and Schwally Semit. Kriegsalterthümer, p. 60 sqq.

9 For the interpretation of this challenging section, refer to the discussions by W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites(²), p. 455 and following, and Schwally Semit. Kriegsalterthümer, p. 60 and following.

10 Interesting parallels in Barhebraeus Chron., ed. Brun and Kirsch, p. 222, and Ewald, Hist. Israel, iii. p. 84.

10 Interesting parallels in Barhebraeus Chron., ed. Brun and Kirsch, p. 222, and Ewald, Hist. Israel, iii. p. 84.

11 The cave of Adullam has been traditionally placed (since the 12th century) at Khareitūn, two hours’ journey south of Bethlehem. But the town of Adullam, which has not been identified with any certainty, lay in the low country of Judah (Josh. xv. 35). The “cave” is also spoken of as a “hold” or fortress, and this is everywhere the true reading. The name has been identified with ‘Īd-el-mā (or -miyē) about 12 m. S.W. of Bethlehem.

11 The cave of Adullam has traditionally been located (since the 12th century) at Khareitūn, a two-hour journey south of Bethlehem. However, the exact location of the town of Adullam remains uncertain; it is thought to be in the lowlands of Judah (Josh. xv. 35). The "cave" is also referred to as a "hold" or fortress, which is the more accurate term. The name has been associated with ‘Īd-el-mā (or -miyē), situated about 12 miles southwest of Bethlehem.

12 According to a late Rabbinical story, David, like Bruce of Scotland, was once saved by a spider which spun its web over the cave wherein he was concealed.

12 According to a later Rabbinical story, David, just like Bruce of Scotland, was once saved by a spider that spun its web over the cave where he was hiding.

13 The law of the distribution of booty after war enacted by David (xxx. 24 sqq.) is given as a Mosaic precedent in the post-exilic priestly legislation (Num. xxxi. 27). On the importance of this explicit statement, see W. R. Smith, Old Test. in Jewish Church(²), 386 sq.

13 The law about sharing the spoils of war established by David (xxx. 24 sqq.) is presented as a precedent from Moses in the priestly laws after the exile (Num. xxxi. 27). For more on the significance of this clear statement, see W. R. Smith, Old Test. in Jewish Church(²), 386 sq.

14 Bethel (ver. 27) is probably the Bethuel near Ziklag (1 Chron. iv. 30). David’s friendly relations with the Philistines find a parallel in Isaac’s covenant with Abimelech (q.v.). In Ps. xxxiv. the latter name actually appears in place of Achish.

14 Bethel (ver. 27) is likely the Bethuel close to Ziklag (1 Chron. iv. 30). David’s friendly connections with the Philistines are similar to Isaac’s agreement with Abimelech (q.v.). In Ps. xxxiv, the latter name is actually used instead of Achish.

15 Fundamente Israel. u. jüd. Gesch. (1896), pp. 23 sqq.; see also Winckler, Gesch. Isr. i. 24; Keilinschr. u. d. Alte Test.(³), p. 228 sqq.

15 Foundations of Israel and Jewish History. (1896), pp. 23 and following; see also Winckler, History of Israel. vol. 1, p. 24; Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament. (3rd ed.), p. 228 and following.

16 1 Chron. xviii. 1 reads “Gath and her dependent villages”; the original reading is a matter for conjecture.

16 1 Chron. xviii. 1 says “Gath and its surrounding villages”; the original text is uncertain.

17 Cf. the idea in 1 Kings xxii. 19-23; Ezek. xiv. 9; contrast 1 Chron. xxi. 1.

17 See the idea in 1 Kings 22:19-23; Ezekiel 14:9; contrast 1 Chronicles 21:1.

18 This un-Hebraic name, which is not unlike arōn, “ark,” should possibly be corrected to Adonijah (Cheyne, Ency. Bib. s.v.).

18 This name, which isn’t very Hebrew and resembles arōn, “ark,” might need to be changed to Adonijah (Cheyne, Ency. Bib. s.v.).

19 David destroyed two-thirds of the Moabites—presumably of their fighting men (2 Sam. viii. 2); Mesha destroys the inhabitants of the captured cities in honour of his god Chemosh.

19 David wiped out two-thirds of the Moabites—likely their warriors (2 Sam. viii. 2); Mesha eliminates the people of the conquered cities to honor his god Chemosh.

20 It finds a parallel in the fate of the heralds of Orchomenus (Frazer, Pausan. v. 135) and in an Arabian story (Ibn Athīr, viii. 360; Nöldeke in Budde, Hand-Commentar, ad loc.); cf. also Ewald, iii. 152.

20 It mirrors the fate of the messengers from Orchomenus (Frazer, Pausan. v. 135) and an Arabian tale (Ibn Athīr, viii. 360; Nöldeke in Budde, Hand-Commentar, ad loc.); see also Ewald, iii. 152.

21 On the questions raised see the commentaries upon 2 Sam. viii. and x. and the Ency. Biblica, s.vv. “David,” “Merom,” “Zobah.” The main problem is whether the account of David’s rule has been exaggerated, or whether the attempt has been made to throw back to the time of the first king of all Israel later political conditions.

21 For comments on the questions raised, refer to the commentaries on 2 Sam. viii. and x. and the Ency. Biblica, s.vv. “David,” “Merom,” “Zobah.” The main issue is whether the description of David’s rule has been overstated, or if there’s an effort to project later political circumstances back to the era of Israel’s first king.

22 Viz. the present position of 2 Sam. ix.-xx. after the miscellaneous collection of details in v.-viii. See, on the other hand, the view of 1 Kings v. 3, 4.

22 That is, the current situation in 2 Samuel chapters 9 to 20 follows the mixed collection of details in chapters 5 to 8. Compare this with the perspective in 1 Kings 5:3, 4.

23 The present position of this incident, immediately after Absalom’s rebellion was quelled, is almost inconceivable (Winckler, H. P. Smith, B. Luther, Ed. Meyer). See next page.

23 The current state of this incident, right after Absalom's rebellion was put down, is nearly unimaginable (Winckler, H. P. Smith, B. Luther, Ed. Meyer). See next page.

24 He was five years of age at the battle of Gilboa (iv. 4), and is now grown up and with a young child (ix. 12). But the narrative loses its point unless David’s kindness “for Jonathan’s sake” comes at an early date soon after he became king, and although the youth is found at Lo-debar (east of the Jordan) under the protection of Machir, the independent fragment in ii. 8 sqq. implies that the Israelites had recovered the position they had lost at the battle of Gilboa.

24 He was five years old during the battle of Gilboa (iv. 4) and is now grown up with a young child (ix. 12). However, the story loses its significance unless David’s kindness “for Jonathan’s sake” happens early on after he becomes king. Even though the young man is found in Lo-debar (east of the Jordan) under Machir’s protection, the independent section in ii. 8 sqq. suggests that the Israelites had regained the territory they lost at the battle of Gilboa.

25 There is an unmistakable reference to the occurrence in the episode of Shimei, who hovers in the background of Absalom’s revolt with a large body of men at his command (xvi. 7 sqq.).

25 There is a clear reference to the events in the episode of Shimei, who stands in the background of Absalom’s rebellion with a significant group of men at his command (xvi. 7 sqq.).

26 If Ewald’s brilliant interpretation of an obscure word in 2 Sam. xiii. 32 be correct.

26 If Ewald’s insightful interpretation of a little-known word in 2 Sam. xiii. 32 is accurate.

27 “Israelite” (2 Sam. xvii. 25) is a very unnecessary designation; 1 Chron. ii. 17 would make him an Ishmaelite.

27 “Israelite” (2 Sam. xvii. 25) is a completely unnecessary label; 1 Chron. ii. 17 would categorize him as an Ishmaelite.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See Hebrew Religion, Messiah, Prophet.

29 Kuenen, “The Critical Method,” Modern Review, 1880, p. 701 (Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Germ. ed. by Budde, p. 33).

29 Kuenen, “The Critical Method,” Modern Review, 1880, p. 701 (Collected Works, Germ. ed. by Budde, p. 33).

30 His charges to Solomon in 1 Kings ii. 5-9 do not arise necessarily from motives of revenge; a young and untried sovereign could not afford to continue the clemency which his father was strong enough to extend to dangerous enemies. Apart from this, it is possible that the words have been written to shift from Solomon’s shoulders the bloodshed incurred in establishing his throne.

30 His instructions to Solomon in 1 Kings ii. 5-9 aren't necessarily driven by revenge; a young and inexperienced king couldn't afford to show the mercy that his father could extend to his dangerous foes. Besides this, it’s possible that these words were written to divert the blame for the bloodshed that occurred in securing his throne away from Solomon.





        
        
    
Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!