FOOTNOTE:

[1] See the paper by V. A. Smith in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Soc._ (1897), p. 13.

DELIA, a festival of Apollo held every five years at the great panegyris

in Delos (Homeric _Hymn to Apollo_, 147). It included athletic and

musical contests, at which the prize was a branch of the sacred palm.

This festival was said to have been established by Theseus on his way

back from Crete. Its celebration gradually fell into abeyance and was

not revived till 426 B.C., when the Athenians purified the island and

took so prominent a part in the maintenance of the Delia that it came to

be regarded almost as an Athenian festival (Thucydides iii. 104).

Ceremonial embassies ([Greek: theoriai]) from all the Greek cities were

present.

See G. Gilbert, _Deliaca_ (1869); J. A. Lebegue, _Recherches sur

Delos_ (1876); A. Mommsen, _Feste der Stadt Athen_ (1898); E. Pfuhl,

_De Atheniensium pompis sacris_ (1900); G. F. Schomann, _Griechische

Altertumer_ (4th ed., 1897-1902); P. Stengel, _Die griechischen

Kultusaltertumer_ (1898); T. Homolle in Daremberg and Saglio's

_Dictionnaire des antiquites_.

DELIAN LEAGUE, or CONFEDERACY OF DELOS, the name given to a

confederation of Greek states under the leadership of Athens, with its

headquarters at Delos, founded in 478 B.C. shortly after the final

repulse of the expedition of the Persians under Xerxes I. This

confederacy, which after many modifications and vicissitudes was finally

broken up by the capture of Athens by Sparta in 404, was revived in

378-7 (the "Second Athenian Confederacy") as a protection against

Spartan aggression, and lasted, at least formally, until the victory of

Philip II. of Macedon at Chaeronea. These two confederations have an

interest quite out of proportion to the significance of the detailed

events which form their history. (See GREECE: _Ancient History_.) They

are the first two examples of which we have detailed knowledge of a

serious attempt at united action on the part of a large number of

self-governing states at a relatively high level of conscious political

development. The first league, moreover, in its later period affords the

first example in recorded history of self-conscious imperialism in which

the subordinate units enjoyed a specified local autonomy with an

organized system, financial, military and judicial. The second league is

further interesting as the precursor of the Achaean and Aetolian

Leagues.

_History._--Several causes contributed to the formation of the first

Confederacy of Delos. During the 6th century B.C. Sparta had come to be

regarded as the chief power, not only in the Peloponnese, but also in

Greece as a whole, including the islands of the Aegean. The Persian

invasions of Darius and Xerxes, with the consequent importance of

maritime strength and the capacity for distant enterprise, as compared

with that of purely military superiority in the Greek peninsula, caused

a considerable loss of prestige which Sparta was unwilling to recognize.

Moreover, it chanced that at the time the Spartan leaders were not men

of strong character or general ability. Pausanias, the victor of

Plataea, soon showed himself destitute of the high qualities which the

situation demanded. Personal cupidity, discourtesy to the allies, and a

tendency to adopt the style and manners of oriental princes, combined to

alienate from him the sympathies of the Ionian allies, who realized

that, had it not been for the Athenians, the battle of Salamis would

never have been even fought, and Greece would probably have become a

Persian satrapy. The Athenian contingent which was sent to aid Pausanias

in the task of driving the Persians finally out of the Thraceward towns

was under the command of the Athenians, Aristides and Cimon, men of tact

and probity. It is not, therefore, surprising that when Pausanias was

recalled to Sparta on the charge of treasonable overtures to the

Persians, the Ionian allies appealed to the Athenians on the grounds of

kinship and urgent necessity, and that when Sparta sent out Dorcis to

supersede Pausanias he found Aristides in unquestioned command of the

allied fleet. To some extent the Spartans were undoubtedly relieved, in

that it no longer fell to them to organize distant expeditions to Asia

Minor, and this feeling was strengthened about the same time by the

treacherous conduct of their king Leotychides (q.v.) in Thessaly. In any

case the inelastic quality of the Spartan system was unable to adapt

itself to the spirit of the new age. To Aristides was mainly due the

organization of the new league and the adjustment of the contributions

of the various allies in ships or in money. His assessment, of the

details of which we know nothing, was so fair that it remained popular

long after the league of autonomous allies had become an Athenian

empire. The general affairs of the league were managed by a synod which

met periodically in the temple of Apollo and Artemis at Delos, the

ancient centre sanctified by the common worship of the Ionians. In this

synod the allies met on an equality under the presidency of Athens.

Among its first subjects of deliberation must have been the ratification

of Aristides' assessment. Thucydides lays emphasis on the fact that in

these meetings Athens as head of the league had no more than

presidential authority, and the other members were called [Greek:

summachoi] (allies), a word, however, of ambiguous meaning and capable

of including both free and subject allies. The only other fact preserved

by Thucydides is that Athens appointed a board called the Hellenotamiae

([Greek: tamias], steward) to watch over and administer the treasury of

the league, which for some twenty years was kept at Delos, and to

receive the contributions ([Greek: phoros]) of the allies who paid in

money.

The league was, therefore, specifically a free confederation of

autonomous Ionian cities founded as a protection against the common

danger which threatened the Aegean basin, and led by Athens in virtue of

her predominant naval power as exhibited in the war against Xerxes. Its

organization, adopted by the common synod, was the product of the new

democratic ideal embodied in the Cleisthenic reforms, as interpreted by

a just and moderate exponent. It is one of the few examples of free

corporate action on the part of the ancient Greek cities, whose

centrifugal yearning for independence so often proved fatal to the

Hellenic world. It is, therefore, a profound mistake to regard the

history of the league during the first twenty years of its existence as

that of an Athenian empire. Thucydides expressly describes the

predominance of Athens as [Greek: hegemonia] (leadership, headship), not

as [Greek: arche] (empire), and the attempts made by Athenian orators

during the second period of the Peloponnesian War to prove that the

attitude of Athens had not altered since the time of Aristides are

manifestly unsuccessful.

Of the first ten years of the league's history we know practically

nothing, save that it was a period of steady, successful activity

against the few remaining Persian strongholds in Thrace and the Aegean

(Herod, i. 106-107, see ATHENS, CIMON). In these years the Athenian

sailors reached a high pitch of training, and by their successes

strengthened that corporate pride which had been born at Salamis. On the

other hand, it naturally came to pass that certain of the allies became

weary of incessant warfare and looked for a period of commercial

prosperity. Athens, as the chosen leader, and supported no doubt by the

synod, enforced the contributions of ships and money according to the

assessment. Gradually the allies began to weary of personal service and

persuaded the synod to accept a money commutation. The Ionians were

naturally averse from prolonged warfare, and in the prosperity which

must have followed the final rout of the Persians and the freeing of the

Aegean from the pirates (a very important feature in the league's

policy) a money contribution was only a trifling burden. The result was,

however, extremely bad for the allies, whose status in the league

necessarily became lower in relation to that of Athens, while at the

same time their military and naval resources correspondingly diminished.

Athens became more and more powerful, and could afford to disregard the

authority of the synod. Another new feature appeared in the employment

of coercion against cities which desired to secede. Athens might fairly

insist that the protection of the Aegean would become impossible if some

of the chief islands were liable to be used as piratical strongholds,

and further that it was only right that all should contribute in some

way to the security which all enjoyed. The result was that, in the cases

of Naxos and Thasos, for instance, the league's resources were employed

not against the Persians but against recalcitrant Greek islands, and

that the Greek ideal of separate autonomy was outraged. Shortly after

the capture of Naxos (c. 467 B.C.) Cimon proceeded with a fleet of 300

ships (only 100 from the allies) to the south-western and southern

coasts of Asia Minor. Having driven the Persians out of Greek towns in

Lycia and Caria, he met and routed the Persians on land and sea at the

mouth of the Eurymedon in Pamphylia. In 463 after a siege of more than

two years the Athenians captured Thasos, with which they had quarrelled

over mining rights in the Strymon valley. It is said (Thuc. i. 101) that

Thasos had appealed for aid to Sparta, and that the latter was prevented

from responding only by earthquake and the Helot revolt. But this is

both unproved and improbable. Sparta had so far no quarrel with Athens.

Athens thus became mistress of the Aegean, while the synod at Delos had

become practically, if not theoretically, powerless. It was at this time

that Cimon (q.v.), who had striven to maintain a balance between Sparta,

the chief military, and Athens, the chief naval power, was successfully

attacked by Ephialtes and Pericles. During the ensuing years, apart from

a brief return to the Cimonian policy, the resources of the league, or,

as it has now become, the Athenian empire, were directed not so much

against Persia as against Sparta, Corinth, Aegina and Boeotia. (See

ATHENS; SPARTA, &c.) A few points only need be dealt with here. The

first years of the land war brought the Athenian empire to its zenith.

Apart from Thessaly, it included all Greece outside the Peloponnese. At

the same time, however, the Athenian expedition against the Persians in

Egypt ended in a disastrous defeat, and for a time the Athenians

returned to a philo-Laconian policy, perhaps under the direction of

Cimon (see CIMON and PERICLES). Peace was made with Sparta, and, if we

are to believe 4th-century orators, a treaty, the Peace of Callias or of

Cimon, was concluded between the Great King and Athens in 449 after the

death of Cimon before the walls of Citium in Cyprus. The meaning of this

so-called Peace of Callias is doubtful. Owing to the silence of

Thucydides and other reasons, many scholars regard it as merely a

cessation of hostilities (see CIMON and CALLIAS, where authorities are

quoted). At all events, it is significant of the success of the main

object of the Delian League, the Athenians resigning Cyprus and Egypt,

while Persia recognized the freedom of the maritime Greeks of Asia

Minor.

During this period the power of Athens over her allies had increased,

though we do not know anything of the process by which this was brought

about. Chios, Lesbos and Samos alone furnished ships; all the rest had

commuted for a money payment. This meant that the synod was quite

powerless. Moreover in 454 (probably) the changed relations were

crystallized by the transference (proposed by the Samians) of the

treasury to Athens (_Corp. Inscr. Attic._ i. 260). Thus in 448 B.C.

Athens was not only mistress of a maritime empire, but ruled over

Megara, Boeotia, Phocis, Locris, Achaea and Troezen, i.e. over so-called

allies who were strangers to the old pan-Ionian assembly and to the

policy of the league, and was practically equal to Sparta on land. An

important event must be referred probably to the year 451,--the law of

Pericles, by which citizenship (including the right to vote in the

Ecclesia and to sit on paid juries) was restricted to those who could

prove themselves the children of an Athenian father and mother ([Greek:

ex amphoin astoin]). This measure must have had a detrimental effect on

the allies, who thus saw themselves excluded still further from

recognition as equal partners in a league (see PERICLES). The natural

result of all these causes was that a feeling of antipathy rose against

Athens in the minds of those to whom autonomy was the breath of life,

and the fundamental tendency of the Greeks to disruption was soon to

prove more powerful than the forces at the disposal of Athens. The first

to secede were the land powers of Greece proper, whose subordination

Athens had endeavoured to guarantee by supporting the democratic parties

in the various states. Gradually the exiled oligarchs combined; with the

defeat of Tolmides at Coroneia, Boeotia was finally lost to the empire,

and the loss of Phocis, Locris and Megara was the immediate sequel.

Against these losses the retention of Euboea, Nisaea and Pegae was no

compensation; the land empire was irretrievably lost.

The next important event is the revolt of Samos, which had quarrelled

with Miletus over the city of Priene. The Samians refused the

arbitration of Athens. The island was conquered with great difficulty

by the whole force of the league, and from the fact that the tribute of

the Thracian cities and those in Hellespontine district was increased

between 439 and 436 we must probably infer that Athens had to deal with

a widespread feeling of discontent about this period. It is, however,

equally noticeable on the one hand that the main body of the allies was

not affected, and on the other that the Peloponnesian League on the

advice of Corinth officially recognized the right of Athens to deal with

her rebellious subject allies, and refused to give help to the Samians.

The succeeding events which led to the Peloponnesian War and the final

disruption of the league are discussed in other articles. (See ATHENS:

_History_, and PELOPONNESIAN War.) Two important events alone call for

special notice. The first is the raising of the allies' tribute in 425

B.C. by a certain Thudippus, presumably a henchman of Cleon. The fact,

though not mentioned by Thucydides, was inferred from Aristophanes

(_Wasps_, 660), Andocides (_de Pace_, S 9), Plutarch (_Aristides_, c.

24), and pseudo-Andocides (_Alcibiad._ 11); it was proved by the

discovery of the assessment list of 425-4 (Hicks and Hill, _Inscrip._

64). The second event belongs to 411, after the failure of the Sicilian

expedition. In that year the tribute of the allies was commuted for a 5%

tax on all imports and exports by sea. This tax, which must have tended

to equalize the Athenian merchants with those of the allied cities,

probably came into force gradually, for beside the new collectors called

[Greek: poristai] we still find Hellenotamiae (_C.I.A._ iv. [i.] p. 34).

_The Tribute._--Only a few problems can be discussed of the many which

are raised by the insufficient and conflicting evidence at our disposal.

In the first place there is the question of the tribute. Thucydides is

almost certainly wrong in saying that the amount of the original tribute

was 460 talents (about L106,000); this figure cannot have been reached

for at least twelve, probably twenty years, when new members had been

enrolled (Lycia, Caria, Eion, Lampsacus). Similarly he is probably

wrong, or at all events includes items of which the tribute lists take

no account, when he says that it amounted to 600 talents at the

beginning of the Peloponnesian War. The moderation of the assessment is

shown not only by the fact that it was paid so long without objection,

but also by the individual items. Even in 425 Naxos and Andros paid only

15 talents, while Athens had just raised an _eisphora_ (income tax) from

her own citizens of 200 talents. Moreover it would seem that a tribute

which yielded less than the 5% tax of 411 could not have been

unreasonable.

The number of tributaries is given by Aristophanes as 1000, but this is

greatly in excess of those named in the tribute lists. Some authorities

give 200; others put it as high as 290. The difficulty is increased by

the fact that in some cases several towns were grouped together in one

payment ([Greek: synteleis]). These were grouped into five main

geographical divisions (from 443 to 436; afterwards four, Caria being

merged in Ionia). Each division was represented by two elective

assessment commissioners ([Greek: taktai]), who assisted the Boule at

Athens in the quadrennial division of the tribute. Each city sent in its

own assessment before the [Greek: taktai], who presented it to the

Boule. If there was any difference of opinion the matter was referred to

the Ecclesia for settlement. In the Ecclesia a private citizen might

propose another assessment, or the case might be referred to the law

courts. The records of the tribute are preserved in the so-called quota

lists, which give the names of the cities and the proportion,

one-sixtieth, of their several tributes, which was paid to Athens. No

tribute was paid by members of a _cleruchy_ (q.v.), as we find from the

fact that the tribute of a city always decreased when a cleruchy was

planted in it. This highly organized financial system must have been

gradually evolved, and no doubt reached its perfection only after the

treasury was transferred to Athens.

_Government and Jurisdiction._--There is much difference of opinion

among scholars regarding the attitude of imperial Athens towards her

allies. Grote maintained that on the whole the allies had little ground

for complaint; but in so doing he rather seems to leave out of account

the Greek's dislike of external discipline. The very fact that the

hegemony had become an empire was enough to make the new system highly

offensive to the allies. No very strong argument can be based on the

paucity of actual revolts. The indolent Ionians had seen the result of

secession at Naxos and rebellion at Thasos; the Athenian fleet was

perpetually on guard in the Aegean. On the other hand among the mainland

cities revolt was frequent; they were ready to rebel [Greek: kai para

dynamin]. Therefore, even though Athenian domination may have been

highly salutary in its effects, there can be no doubt that the allies

did not regard it with affection.

To judge only by the negative evidence of the decree of Aristoteles

which records the terms of alliance of the second confederacy (below),

we gather that in the later period at least of the first league's

history the Athenians had interfered with the local autonomy of the

allies in various ways--an inference which is confirmed by the terms of

"alliance" which Athens imposed on Erythrae, Chalcis and Miletus. Though

it appears that Athens made individual agreements with various states,

and therefore that we cannot regard as general rules the terms laid down

in those which we possess, it is undeniable that the Athenians planted

garrisons under permanent Athenian officers ([Greek: phrourarchoi]) in

some cities. Moreover the practice among Athenian settlers of acquiring

land in the allied districts must have been vexatious to the allies, the

more so as all important cases between Athenians and citizens of allied

cities were brought to Athens. Even on the assumption that the Athenian

dicasteries were scrupulously fair in their awards, it must have been

peculiarly galling to the self-respect of the allies and inconvenient to

individuals to be compelled to carry cases to Athens and Athenian

juries. Furthermore we gather from the Aristoteles inscription and from

the 4th-century orators that Athens imposed democratic constitutions on

her allies; indeed Isocrates (_Paneg._, 106) takes credit for Athens on

this ground, and the charter of Erythrae confirms the view (cf. Arist.

_Polit._, viii., vi. 9 1307 b 20; Thuc. viii. 21, 48, 64, 65). Even

though we admit that Chios, Lesbos and Samos (up to 440) retained their

oligarchic governments and that Selymbria, at a time (409 B.C.) when the

empire was _in extremis_, was permitted to choose its own constitution,

there can be no doubt that, from whatever motive and with whatever

result, Athens did exercise over many of her allies an authority which

extended to the most intimate concerns of local administration.

Thus the great attempt on the part of Athens to lead a harmonious league

of free Greek states for the good of Hellas degenerated into an empire

which proved intolerable to the autonomous states of Greece. Her failure

was due partly to the commercial jealousy of Corinth working on the dull

antipathy of Sparta, partly to the hatred of compromise and discipline

which was fatally characteristic of Greece and especially of Ionian

Greece, and partly also to the lack of tact and restraint shown by

Athens and her representatives in her relations with the allies.

_The Second League._--The conditions which led to the second Athenian or

Delian Confederacy were fundamentally different, not only in virtue of

the fact that the allies had learned from experience the dangers to

which such a league was liable, but because the enemy was no longer an

oriental power of whose future action there could be no certain

anticipation, but Sparta, whose ambitious projects since the fall of

Athens had shown that there could be no safety for the smaller states

save in combination.

There can be no reasonable doubt that as soon as the Athenians began to

recover from the paralysing effect of the victory of Lysander and the

internal troubles in which they were involved by the government of the

Thirty, their thoughts turned to the possibility of recovering their

lost empire. The first step in the direction was the recovery of their

sea-power, which was effected by the victory of Conon at Cnidus (August

394 B.C.). Gradually individual cities which had formed part of the

Athenian empire returned to their alliance with Athens, until the

Spartans had lost Rhodes, Cos, Nisyrus, Teos, Chios, Mytilene, Ephesus,

Erythrae, Lemnos, Imbros, Scyros, Eretria, Melos, Cythera, Carpathus

and Delos. Sparta had only Sestos and Abydos of all that she had won by

the battle of Aegospotami. At the same time no systematic constructive

attempt at a renewal of empire can as yet be detected. Athenian

relations were with individual states only, and the terms of alliance

were various. Moreover, whereas Persia had been for several years aiding

Athens against Sparta, the revolt of the Athenian ally Evagoras (q.v.)

of Cyprus set them at enmity, and with the secession of Ephesus, Cnidus

and Samos in 391 and the civil war in Rhodes, the star of Sparta seemed

again to be in the ascendant. But the whole position was changed by the

successes of Thrasybulus, who brought over the Odrysian king Medocus and

Seuthes of the Propontis to the Athenian alliance, set up a democracy in

Byzantium and reimposed the old 10% duty on goods from the Black Sea.

Many of the island towns subsequently came over, and from inscriptions

at Clazomenae (_C.I.A._ ii. 14_b_) and Thasos (_C.I.A._ iv. 11_b_) we

learn that Thrasybulus evidently was deliberately aiming at a renewal of

the empire, though the circumstances leading to his death at Aspendus

when seeking to raise money suggest that he had no general backing in

Athens.

The peace of Antalcidas or the King's Peace (see ANTALCIDAS; SPARTA) in

386 was a blow to Athens in the interests of Persia and Sparta.

Antalcidas compelled the Athenians to give their assent to it only by

making himself master of the Hellespont by stratagem with the aid of

Dionysius the Elder of Syracuse. By this peace all the Greek cities on

the mainland of Asia with the islands of Cyprus and Clazomenae were

recognized as Persian, all other cities except Imbros, Lemnos and Scyros

as autonomous. Directly, this arrangement prevented an Athenian empire;

indirectly, it caused the sacrificed cities and their kinsmen on the

islands to look upon Athens as their protector. The gross selfishness of

the Spartans, herein exemplified, was emphasized by their capture of the

Theban citadel, and, after their expulsion, by the raid upon Attica in

time of peace by the Spartan Sphodrias, and his immunity from punishment

at Sparta (summer of 378 B.C.). The Athenians at once invited their

allies to a conference, and the Second Athenian Confederacy was formed

in the archonship of Nausinicus on the basis of the famous decree of

Aristoteles. Those who attended the conference were probably Athens,

Chios, Mytilene, Methymna, Rhodes, Byzantium, Thebes, the latter of

which joined Athens soon after the Sphodrias raid. In the spring of 377

invitations were sent out to the maritime cities. Some time in that year

Tenedos, Chios, Chalcis in Euboea, and probably the Euboean cities

Eretria, Carystus and Arethusa gave in their adherence, followed by

Perinthus, Peparethus, Sciathus and other maritime cities.

At this point Sparta was roused to a sense of the significance of the

new confederacy, and the Athenian corn supply was threatened by a

Spartan fleet of sixty triremes. The Athenians immediately fitted out a

fleet under Chabrias, who gained a decisive victory over the Spartans

between Naxos and Paros (battle of Naxos 376 B.C.), both of which were

added to the league. Proceeding northwards in 375 Chabrias brought over

a large number of the Thraceward towns, including Abdera, Thasos and

Samothrace. It is interesting to notice that a garrison was placed in

Abdera in direct contravention of the terms of the new confederacy

(Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._, v. 394). About the same time the successes of

Timotheus in the west resulted in the addition to the league of Corcyra

and the cities of Cephallenia, and his moderation induced the

Acarnanians and Alcetas, the Molossian king, to follow their example.

Once again Sparta sent out a fleet, but Timotheus in spite of financial

embarrassment held his ground. By this time, however, the alliance

between Thebes and Athens was growing weaker, and Athens, being short of

money, concluded a peace with Sparta (probably in July 374), by which

the peace of Antalcidas was confirmed and the two states recognized each

other as mistress of sea and land respectively. Trouble, however, soon

arose over Zacynthus, and the Spartans not only sent help to the

Zacynthian oligarchs but even besieged Corcyra (373). Timotheus was sent

to relieve the island, but shortness of money compelled him to search

for new allies, and he spent the summer of 373 in persuading Jason of

Pherae (if he had not already joined), and certain towns in Thrace, the

Chersonese, the Propontis and the Aegean to enrol themselves. This delay

in sending help to Corcyra was rightly or wrongly condemned by the

Athenians, who dismissed Timotheus in favour of Iphicrates. The

expedition which followed produced negative successes, but the absence

of any positive success and the pressure of financial difficulty,

coupled with the defection of Jason (probably before 371), and the

high-handed action of Thebes in destroying Plataea (373), induced Athens

to renew the peace with Sparta which Timotheus had broken. With the

support of Persia an agreement was made by a congress at Sparta on the

basis of the autonomy of the cities, Amphipolis and the Chersonese being

granted to Athens. The Thebans at first accepted the terms, but on the

day after, realizing that they were thus balked of their pan-Boeotian

ambition, withdrew and finally severed themselves from the league.

The peace of 371 may be regarded as the conclusion of the first distinct

period in the league's existence. The original purpose of the

league--the protection of the allies from the ambitions of Sparta--was

achieved. Athens was recognized as mistress of the sea; Sparta as the

chief land power. The inherent weakness of the coalition had, however,

become apparent. The enthusiasm of the allies (numbering about seventy)

waned rapidly before the financial exigencies of successive campaigns,

and it is abundantly clear that Thebes had no interest save the

extension of her power in Boeotia. Though her secession, therefore,

meant very little loss of strength, there were not wanting signs that

the league was not destined to remain a power in the land.

The remaining history may be broken up into two periods, the first from

371 to 357, the second from 357 to 338. Throughout these two periods,

which saw the decline and final dissolution of the alliance, there is

very little specific evidence for its existence. The events seem to

belong to the histories of the several cities, and examples of corporate

action are few and uncertain. None the less the known facts justify a

large number of inferences as to the significance of events which are on

the surface merely a part of the individual foreign policy of Athens.

_Period 371-357._--The first event in this period was the battle of

Leuctra (July 371), in which, no doubt to the surprise of Athens, Thebes

temporarily asserted itself as the chief land power in Greece. To

counterbalance the new power Athens very rashly plunged into

Peloponnesian politics with the ulterior object of inducing the states

which had formerly recognized the hegemony of Sparta to transfer their

allegiance to the Delian League. It seems that all the states adopted

this policy with the exception of Sparta (probably) and Elis. The policy

of Athens was mistaken for two reasons: (1) Sparta was not entirely

humiliated, and (2) alliance with the land powers of Peloponnese was

incalculably dangerous, inasmuch as it involved Athens in enterprises

which could not awake the enthusiasm of her maritime allies. This new

coalition naturally alarmed Sparta, which at once made overtures to

Athens on the ground of their common danger from Thebes. The alliance

was concluded in 369. About the same time Iphicrates was sent to take

possession of Amphipolis according to the treaty of 371. Some success in

Macedonia roused the hostility of Thebes, and the subsequent attempts on

Amphipolis caused the Chalcidians to declare against the league. It

would appear that the old suspicion of the allies was now thoroughly

awakened, and we find Athens making great efforts to conciliate Mytilene

by honorific decrees (Hicks and Hill, 109). This suspicion, which was

due primarily, no doubt, to the agreement with Sparta, would find

confirmation in the subsequent exchange of compliments with Dionysius I.

of Syracuse, Sparta's ally, who with his sons received the Athenian

citizenship. It is not clear that the allies officially approved this

new friendship; it is certain that it was actually distasteful to them.

The same dislike would be roused by the Athenian alliance with Alexander

of Pherae (368-367). The maritime allies naturally had no desire to be

involved in the quarrels of Sicily, Thessaly and the Peloponnese.

In 367 Athens and Thebes sent rival ambassadors to Persia, with the

result that Athens was actually ordered to abandon her claim to

Amphipolis, and to remove her navy from the high seas. The claim to

Amphipolis was subsequently affirmed, but the Greek states declined to

obey the order of Persia. In 366 Athens lost Oropus, a blow which she

endeavoured to repair by forming an alliance with Arcadia and by an

attack on Corinth. At the same time certain of the Peloponnesian states

made peace with Thebes, and some hold that Athens joined this peace

(Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ v. 449). Timotheus was sent in 366-365 to make

a demonstration against Persia. Finding Samos in the hands of

Cyprothemis, a servant of the satrap Tigranes, he laid siege to it,

captured it after a ten months' siege and established a cleruchy. Though

Samos was not apparently one of the allies, this latter action could not

but remind the allies of the very dangers which the second confederacy

had set out to avoid.

The next important event was the serious attempt on the part of

Epaminondas to challenge the Athenian naval supremacy. Though Timotheus

held his ground the confederacy was undoubtedly weakened. In 362 Athens

joined in the opposition to the Theban expedition which ended in the

battle of Mantineia (July). In the next year the Athenian generals

failed in the north in their attempt to control the Hellespont. In

Thessaly Alexander of Pherae became hostile and after several successes

even attacked the Peiraeus. Chares was ordered to make reprisals, but

instead sailed to Corcyra, where he made the mistake of siding with the

oligarchs. The last event of the period was a success, the recovery of

Euboea (357), which was once more added to the league.

During these fourteen years the policy of Athens towards her maritime

allies was, as we have seen, shortsighted and inconsistent. Alliances

with various land powers, and an inability to understand the true

relations which alone could unite the league, combined to alienate the

allies, who could discover no reason for the expenditure of their

contributions on protecting Sparta or Corinth against Thebes. The

[Greek: Synedrion] of the league is found taking action in several

instances, but there is evidence (cf. the expedition of Epaminondas in

363) that there was ground for suspecting disloyalty in many quarters.

On the other hand, though the Athenian fleet became stronger and several

cities were captured, the league itself did not gain any important

voluntary adherents. The generals were compelled to support their forces

by plunder or out of their private resources, and, frequently failing,

diverted their efforts from the pressing needs of the allies to purely

Athenian objects.

_Period 357-338._--The latent discontent of the allies was soon fanned

into hostility by the intrigues of Mausolus, prince of Cardia, who was

anxious to extend his kingdom. Chios, Rhodes, Cos, Byzantium, Erythrae

and probably other cities were in revolt by the spring of 356, and their

attacks on loyal members of the confederacy compelled Athens to take the

offensive. Chabrias had already been killed in an attack on Chios in the

previous autumn, and the fleet was under the command of Timotheus,

Iphicrates and Chares, who sailed against Byzantium. The enemy sailed

north from Samos and in a battle off Embata (between Erythrae and Chios)

defeated Chares, who, without the consent of his colleagues, had

ventured to engage them in a storm. The more cautious generals were

accused of corruption in not supporting Chares. Iphicrates was acquitted

and Timotheus condemned. Chares sought to replenish his resources by

aiding the Phrygian satrap Artabazus against Artaxerxes Ochus, but a

threat from the Persian court caused the Athenians to recall him, and

peace was made by which Athens recognized the independence of the

revolted towns. The league was further weakened by the secession of

Corcyra, and by 355 was reduced to Athens, Euboea and a few islands. By

this time, moreover, Philip II. of Macedon had begun his career of

conquest, and had shattered an embryonic alliance between the league and

certain princes of Thrace (Cetriporis), Paeonia (Lyppeius) and Illyria

(Grabus). In 355 his advance temporarily ceased, but, as we learn from

Isocrates and Xenophon, the financial exhaustion of the league was such

that its destruction was only a matter of time. Resuming operations in

354, Philip, in spite of temporary checks at the hands of Chares, and

the spasmodic opposition of a few barbarian chiefs, took from the

league all its Thracian and Macedonian cities (Abdera, Maronea,

Neapolis, Methone.) In 352-351 Philip actually received help from former

members of the confederacy. In 351 Charidemus, Chares and Phocion were

sent to oppose him, and we find that the contributions of the Lesbian

cities were assigned to them for supplies, but no successes were gained.

In 349 Euboea and Olynthus were lost to the league, of which indeed

nothing remained but an empty form, in spite of the facts that the

expelled Olynthians appealed to it in 348 and that Mytilene rejoined in

347. In 346 the peace of Philocrates was made between the league and

Philip on terms which were accepted by the Athenian Boule. It is very

remarkable that, in spite of the powerlessness of the confederacy, the

last recorded event in its history is the steady loyalty of Tenedos,

which gave money to Athens about 340 (Hicks and Hill, 146). The victory

of Philip at Chaeronea in 338 finally destroyed the league.

In spite of the precautions taken by the allies to prevent the

domination of Athens at their expense, the policy of the league was

almost throughout directed rather in the interests of Athens. Founded

with the specific object of thwarting the ambitious designs of Sparta,

it was plunged by Athens into enterprises of an entirely different

character which exhausted the resources of the allies without benefiting

them in any respect. There is no doubt that, with very few exceptions,

the cities were held to their allegiance solely by the superior force of

the Athenian navy. The few instances of its action show that the [Greek:

Synedrion] was practically only a tool in the hands of Athens.

AUTHORITIES.--_The First League._--The general histories of Greece,

especially those of A. Holm (Eng. trans., London, 1894), G. Busolt

(2nd ed., Gotha, 1893), J. Beloch (Strassburg, 1893 foll.), and G.

Grote (the one-vol. ed. of 1907 has some further notes on later

evidence). E. Meyer's _Gesch. des Altertums_ (Stuttgart, 1892 foll.)

and _Forschungen_ (Halle, 1892 foll.) are of the greatest value. For

inscriptions, G. F. Hill, _Sources of Greek History_, 478-431 (2nd

ed., 1907); E. L. Hicks and G. F. Hill, _Greek Hist. Inscr._ (Oxford,

1901). On the tribute see also U. Kohler in _Abhandlungen d. Berliner

Akademie_ (1869) and U. Pedroli, "I Tributi degli alleati d' Atene" in

Beloch's _Studi di storia antica_. See also articles ARISTIDES;

THEMISTOCLES; PERICLES; CIMON, &c., and GREECE: _History_, with works

quoted. For the last years of the league see also PELOPONNESIAN WAR.

_The Second League._--The chief modern works are G. Busolt, "Der

zweite athenische Bund" in _Neue Jahrbucher fur classische Philologie_

(supp. vol. vii., 1873-1875, pp. 641-866), and F. H. Marshall, _The

Second Athenian Confederacy_ (1905), one of the Cambridge Historical

Essays (No. xiii.). The latter is based on Busolt's monograph and

includes subsequent epigraphic evidence, with a full list of

authorities. For inscriptions see Hicks and Hill, op. cit., and the

_Inscriptiones Atticae_, vol. ii. pt. 5. The meagre data given by

ancient writers are collected by Busolt and Marshall. (J. M. M.)

DELIBES, CLEMENT PHILIBERT LEO (1836-1891), French composer, was born at

Saint Germain du Val on the 21st of February 1836. He studied at the

Paris Conservatoire under Adolphe Charles Adam, through whose influence

he became accompanist at the Theatre Lyrique. His first essay in

dramatic composition was his _Deux sous de charbon_ (1853), and during

several years he produced a number of operettas. His cantata _Alger_ was

heard at the Paris opera in 1865. Having become second chorus master at

the Grand Opera, he wrote the music of a ballet entitled _La Source_ for

this theatre, in collaboration with Minkous, a Polish composer. La

Source was produced with great success in 1866. The composer returned to

the operetta style with _Malbrouk s'en va-t-en guerre_,--written in

collaboration with Georges Bizet, Emile Jonas and Legouix, and given at

the Theatre de l'Athenee in 1867. Two years later came _L'Ecossais de

Chatou_, a one-act piece, and _La Cour du roi Petaud_, a three-act

opera-bouffe. The ballet _Coppelia_ was produced at the Grand Opera on

the 25th of May 1870 with enormous success.

Delibes gave up his post as second chorus master at the Grand Opera in

1872 when he married the daughter of Mademoiselle Denain, formerly an

actress at the Comedie Francaise. In this year he published a collection

of graceful melodies including _Myrto_, _Les Filles de Cadiz_,

_Bonjour_, _Suzon_ and others. His first important dramatic work was _Le

Roi l'a dit_, a charming comic opera, produced on the 24th of May 1873

at the Opera Comique. Three years later, on the 14th of June 1876,

_Sylvia_, a ballet in three acts, one of the composer's most delightful

works, was produced at the Grand Opera. This was followed by _La Mort

d'Orphee_, a grand scena produced at the Trocadero concerts in 1878; by

_Jean de Nivelle_, a three-act opera brought out at the Opera Comique on

the 8th of March 1880; and by _Lakme_, an opera in three acts produced

at the same theatre on the 14th of April 1883. Lakme has remained his

most popular opera. The composer died in Paris on the 16th of January

1891, leaving _Kassya_, a four-act opera, in an unfinished state. This

work was completed by E. Guiraud, and produced at the Opera Comique on

the 21st of March 1893. In 1877 Delibes became a chevalier of the Legion

of Honour; in 1881 he became a professor of advanced composition at the

Conservatoire; in 1884 he took the place of Victor Masse at the Institut

de France.

Leo Delibes was a typically French composer. His music is light,

graceful and refined. He excelled in ballet music, and _Sylvia_ may well

be considered a masterpiece. His operas are constructed on a

conventional pattern. The harmonic texture, however, is modern, and the

melodic invention abundant, while the orchestral treatment is invariably

excellent.

DELILAH, in the Bible, the heroine of Samson's last love-story and the

cause of his downfall (Judg. xvi.). She was a Philistine of Sorek (mod.

Surik), west of Zorah, and when her countrymen offered her an enormous

bribe to betray him, she set to work to find out the source of his

strength. Thrice Samson scoffingly told her how he might be bound, and

thrice he readily broke the bonds with which she had fettered him in his

sleep; seven green bow-strings, new ropes, and even the braiding of his

hair into the frame of the loom failed to secure him. At length he

disclosed the secret of his power. Delilah put him to sleep upon her

lap, called in a man to shave off his seven locks, and this time he was

easily captured. See SAMSON.

DELILLE, JACQUES (1738-1813), French poet, was born on the 22nd of June

1738 at Aigue-Perse in Auvergne. He was an illegitimate child, and was

descended by his mother from the chancellor De l'Hopital. He was

educated at the college of Lisieux in Paris and became an elementary

teacher. He gradually acquired a reputation as a poet by his epistles,

in which things are not called by their ordinary names but are hinted at

by elaborate periphrases. Sugar becomes "le miel americain que du suc

des roseaux exprima l'Africain." The publication (1769) of his

translation of the _Georgics_ of Virgil made him famous. Voltaire

recommended the poet for the next vacant place in the Academy. He was at

once elected a member, but was not admitted until 1774 owing to the

opposition of the king, who alleged that he was too young. In his

_Jardins, ou l'art d'embellir les paysages_ (1782) he made good his

pretensions as an original poet. In 1786 he made a journey to

Constantinople in the train of the ambassador M. de Choiseul-Gouffier.

Delille had become professor of Latin poetry at the College da France,

and abbot of Saint-Severin, when the outbreak of the Revolution reduced

him to poverty. He purchased his personal safety by professing his

adherence to revolutionary doctrine, but eventually quitted Paris, and

retired to St Die, where he completed his translation of the _Aeneid_.

He emigrated first to Basel and then to Glairesse in Switzerland. Here

he finished his _Homme des champs_, and his poem on the _Trois regnes de

la nature_. His next place of refuge was in Germany, where he composed

his _La Pitie_; and finally, he passed some time in London, chiefly

employed in translating _Paradise Lost_. In 1802 he was able to return

to Paris, where, although nearly blind, he resumed his professorship and

his chair at the Academy, but lived in retirement. He fortunately did

not outlive the vogue of the descriptive poems which were his special

province, and died on the 1st of May 1813.

Delille left behind him little prose. His preface to the translation of

the _Georgics_ is an able essay, and contains many excellent hints on

the art and difficulties of translation. He wrote the article "La

Bruyere" in the _Biographie universelle_. The following is the list of

his poetical works:--_Les Georgiques de Virgile, traduites en vers

francais_ (Paris, 1769, 1782, 1785, 1809); _Les Jardins_, en quatre

chants (1780; new edition, Paris, 1801); _L'Homme des champs, ou les

Georgiques francaises_ (Strassburg, 1802); _Poesies fugitives_ (1802);

_Dithyrambe sur l'immortalite de l'ame, suivi du passage du Saint

Gothard_, poeme traduit de l'Anglais de Madame la duchesse de Devonshire

(1802); _La Pitie_, poeme en quatre chants (Paris, 1802); _L'Eneide de

Virgile, traduite en vers francais_ (4 vols., 1804); _Le Paradis perdu_

(3 vols., 1804); _L'Imagination_, poeme en huit chants (2 vols., 1806);

_Les trois regnes de la nature_ (2 vols., 1808); _La Conversation_

(1812). A collection given under the title of _Poesies diverses_ (1801)

was disavowed by Delille.

His _Oeuvres_ (16 vols.) were published in 1824. See Sainte-Beuve,

_Portraits litteraires_, vol. ii.

DELIRIUM (a Latin medical term for madness, from _delirare_, to be mad,

literally to wander from the _lira_, or furrow), a temporary form of

brain disorder, generally occurring in connexion with some special form

of bodily disease. It may vary in intensity from slight and occasional

wandering of the mind and incoherence of expression, to fixed delusions

and violent maniacal excitement, and again it may be associated with

more or less of coma or insensibility. (See INSANITY, and

NEUROPATHOLOGY.) Delirium is apt to occur in most diseases of an acute

nature, such as fevers or inflammatory affections, in injuries affecting

the brain, in blood diseases, in conditions of exhaustion, and as the

result of the action of certain specific poisons, such as opium, Indian

hemp, belladonna, chloroform and alcohol.

Delirium tremens is one of a train of symptoms of what is termed in

medical nomenclature acute alcoholism, or excessive indulgence in

alcohol. It must, however, be observed that this disorder, although

arising in this manner, rarely comes on as the result of a single

debauch in a person unaccustomed to the abuse of stimulants, but

generally occurs in cases where the nervous system has been already

subjected for a length of time to the poisonous action of alcohol, so

that the complaint might be more properly regarded as acute supervening

on chronic alcoholism. It is equally to be borne in mind that many

habitual drunkards never suffer from delirium tremens.

It was long supposed, and is indeed still believed by some, that

delirium tremens only comes on when the supply of alcohol has been

suddenly cut off; but this view is now generally rejected, and there is

abundant evidence to show that the attack comes on while the patient is

still continuing to drink. Even in those cases where several days have

elapsed between the cessation from drinking and the seizure, it will be

found that in the interval the premonitory symptoms of delirium tremens

have shown themselves, one of which is aversion to drink as well as

food--the attack being in most instances preceded by marked derangement

of the digestive functions. Occasionally the attack is precipitated in

persons predisposed to it by the occurrence of some acute disease, such

as pneumonia, by accidents, such as burns, also by severe mental strain,

and by the deprivation of food, even where the supply of alcohol is less

than would have been likely to produce it otherwise. Where, on the other

hand, the quantity of alcohol taken has been very large, the attack is

sometimes ushered in by fits of an epileptiform character.

One of the earliest indications of the approaching attack of delirium

tremens is sleeplessness, any rest the patient may obtain being troubled

by unpleasant or terrifying dreams. During the day there is observed a

certain restlessness and irritability of manner, with trembling of the

hands and a thick or tremulous articulation. The skin is perspiring, the

countenance oppressed-looking and flushed, the pulse rapid and feeble,

and there is evidence of considerable bodily prostration. These symptoms

increase each day and night for a few days, and then the characteristic

delirium is superadded. The patient is in a state of mental confusion,

talks incessantly and incoherently, has a distressed and agitated or

perplexed appearance, and a vague notion that he is pursued by some one

seeking to injure him. His delusions are usually of transient character,

but he is constantly troubled with visual hallucinations in the form of

disagreeable animals or insects which he imagines he sees all about him.

He looks suspiciously around him, turns over his pillows, and ransacks

his bedclothes for some fancied object he supposes to be concealed

there. There is constant restlessness, a common form of delusion being

that he is not in his own house, but imprisoned in some apartment from

which he is anxious to escape to return home. In these circumstances he

is ever wishing to get out of bed and out of doors, and, although in

general he may be persuaded to return to bed, he is soon desiring to get

up again. The trembling of the muscles from which the name of the

disease is derived is a prominent but not invariable symptom. It is most

marked in the muscles of the hands and arms and in the tongue. The

character of the delirium is seldom wild or noisy, but is much more

commonly a combination of busy restlessness and indefinite fear. When

spoken to, the patient can answer correctly enough, but immediately

thereafter relapses into his former condition of incoherence.

Occasionally maniacal symptoms develop themselves, the patient becoming

dangerously violent, and the case thus assuming a much graver aspect

than one of simple delirium tremens.

In most cases the symptoms undergo abatement in from three to six days,

the cessation of the attack being marked by the occurrence of sound

sleep, from which the patient awakes in his right mind, although in a

state of great physical prostration, and in great measure if not

entirely oblivious of his condition during his illness.

Although generally the termination of an attack of delirium tremens is

in recovery, it occasionally proves fatal by the supervention of coma

and convulsions, or acute mania, or by exhaustion, more especially when

any acute bodily disease is associated with the attack. In certain

instances delirium tremens is but the beginning of serious and permanent

impairment of intellect, as is not infrequently observed in confirmed

drunkards who have suffered from frequent attacks of this disease. The

theory once widely accepted, that delirium tremens was the result of the

too sudden breaking off from indulgence in alcohol, led to its treatment

by regular and often large doses of stimulants, a practice fraught with

mischievous results, since however much the delirium appeared to be thus

calmed for the time, the continuous supply of the poison which was the

original source of the disease inflicted serious damage upon the brain,

and led in many instances to the subsequent development of insanity. The

former system of prescribing large doses of opium, with the view of

procuring sleep at all hazards, was no less pernicious. In addition to

these methods of treatment, mechanical restraint of the patient was the

common practice.

The views of the disease which now prevail, recognizing the delirium as

the effect at once of the poisonous action of alcohol upon the brain and

of the want of food, encourage reliance to be placed for its cure upon

the entire withdrawal, in most instances, of stimulants, and the liberal

administration of light nutriment, in addition to quietness and gentle

but firm control, without mechanical restraint. In mild attacks this is

frequently all that is required. In more severe cases, where there is

great restlessness, sedatives have to be resorted to, and many

substances have been recommended for the purpose. Opiates administered

in small quantity, and preferably by hypodermic injection, are

undoubtedly of value; and chloral, either alone or in conjunction with

bromide of potassium, often answers even better. Such remedies, however,

should be administered with great caution, and only under medical

supervision.

Stimulants may be called for where the delirium assumes the low or

adynamic form, and the patient tends to sink from exhaustion, or when

the attack is complicated with some other disease. Such cases are,

however, in the highest degree exceptional, and do not affect the

general principle of treatment already referred to, which inculcates the

entire withdrawal of stimulants in the treatment of ordinary attacks of

delirium tremens.

DELISLE, JOSEPH NICOLAS (1688-1768), French astronomer, was born at

Paris on the 4th of April 1688. Attracted to astronomy by the solar

eclipse of the 12th of May 1706, he obtained permission in 1710 to lodge

in the dome of the Luxembourg, procured some instruments, and there

observed the total eclipse of the 22nd of May 1724. He proposed in 1715

the "diffraction-theory" of the sun's corona, visited England and was

received into the Royal Society in 1724, and left Paris for St

Petersburg on a summons from the empress Catherine, towards the end of

1725. Having founded an observatory there, he returned to Paris in 1747,

was appointed geographical astronomer to the naval department with a

salary of 3000 livres, and installed an observatory in the Hotel Cluny.

Charles Messier and J. J. Lalande were among his pupils. He died of

apoplexy at Paris on the 12th of September 1768. Delisle is chiefly

remembered as the author of a method for observing the transits of Venus

and Mercury by instants of contacts. First proposed by him in a letter

to J. Cassini in 1743, it was afterwards perfected, and has been

extensively employed. As a preliminary to the transit of Mercury in

1743, which he personally observed, he issued a map of the world showing

the varied circumstances of its occurrence. Besides many papers

communicated to the academy of sciences, of which he became a member in

1714, he published _Memoires pour servir a l'histoire et au progres de

l'astronomie_ (St Petersburg, 1738), in which he gave the first method

for determining the heliocentric co-ordinates of sun-spots; _Memoire sur

les nouvelles decouvertes au nord de la mer du sud_ (Paris, 1752), &c.

See _Memoires de l'acad. des sciences_ (Paris, 1768), _Histoire_, p.

167 (G. de Fouchy); J. B. J. Delambre, _Hist. de l'astronomie au

XVIII^e siecle_, pp. 319, 533; Max. Marie, _Hist. des sciences_, vii.

254; Lalande, Bibl. astr. p. 385; and _Le Necrologe des hommes

celebres de France_ (1770). The records of Delisle's observations at

St Petersburg are preserved in manuscript at the Pulkowa observatory.

A report upon them was presented to the St Petersburg academy of

sciences by O. Struve in 1848, and those relating to occultations of

the Pleiades were discussed by Carl Linsser in 1864. See also S.

Newcomb, _Washington Observations_ for 1875, app. ii. pp. 176-189.

(A. M. C.)

DELISLE, LEOPOLD VICTOR (1826- ), French bibliophile and historian, was

born at Valognes (Manche) on the 24th of October 1826. At the Ecole des

Chartes, where his career was remarkably brilliant, his valedictory

thesis was an _Essai sur les revenus publics en Normandie au XII^e

siecle_ (1849), and it was to the history of his native province that he

devoted his early works. Of these the _Etudes sur la condition de la

classe agricole et l'etat de l'agriculture en Normandie au moyen age_

(1851), condensing an enormous mass of facts drawn from the local

archives, was reprinted in 1905 without change, and remains

authoritative. In November 1852 he entered the manuscript department of

the Bibliotheque Imperiale (Nationale), of which in 1874 he became the

official head in succession to Jules Taschereau. He was already known as

the compiler of several invaluable inventories of its manuscripts. When

the French government decided on printing a general catalogue of the

printed books in the Bibliotheque, Delisle became responsible for this

great undertaking and took an active part in the work; in the preface to

the first volume (1897) he gave a detailed history of the library and

its management. Under his administration the library was enriched with

numerous gifts, legacies and acquisitions, notably by the purchase of a

part of the Ashburnham MSS. Delisle proved that the bulk of the MSS. of

French origin which Lord Ashburnham had bought in France, particularly

those bought from the bookseller Barrois, had been purloined by Count

Libri, inspector-general of libraries under King Louis Philippe, and he

procured the repurchase of the MSS. for the library, afterwards

preparing a catalogue of them entitled _Catalogue des MSS. des fonds

Libri et Barrois_ (1888), the preface of which gives the history of the

whole transaction. He was elected member of the Academie des

Inscriptions et Belles Lettres in 1859, and became a member of the staff

of the _Recueil des historiens de la France_, collaborating in vols.

xxii. (1865) and xxiii. (1876) and editing vol. xxiv. (1904), which is

valuable for the social history of France in the 13th century. The

jubilee of his fifty years' association with the Bibliotheque Nationale

was celebrated on the 8th of March 1903. After his retirement (February

21, 1905) he brought out in two volumes a catalogue and description of

the printed books and MSS. in the Musee Conde at Chantilly, left by the

due d'Aumale to the French Institute. He produced many valuable official

reports and catalogues and a great number of memoirs and monographs on

points connected with palaeography and the study of history and

archaeology (see his _Melanges de paleographie et de bibliographie_

(1880) with atlas; and his articles in the _Album paleographique_

(1887). Of his purely historical works special mention must be made of

his _Memoire sur les actes d'Innocent III_ (1857), and his _Memoire sur

les operations financieres des Templiers_ (1889), a collection of

documents of the highest value for economic history. The thirty-second

volume of the _Histoire litteraire de la France_, which was partly his

work, is of great importance for the study of 13th and 14th century

Latin chronicles. Delisle was undoubtedly the most learned man in Europe

with regard to the middle ages; and his knowledge of diplomatics,

palaeography and printing was profound. His output of work, in

catalogues, &c., was enormous, and his services to the Bibliotheque

Nationale in this respect cannot be overestimated. His wife, a daughter

of Eugene Burnouf, was for many years his collaborator.

The _Bibliographie des travaux de L. Delisle_ (1902), by Paul Lacombe,

may be consulted for a full list of his numerous works.

DELITZSCH, FRANZ (1813-1890), German Lutheran theologian and

orientalist, of Jewish descent, was born at Leipzig on the 23rd of

February 1813. He studied theology and oriental languages in the

university of his native town, and in 1850 was appointed professor

ordinarius of theology at Erlangen, where the school of theologians

became almost as famous as that of Tubingen. In 1867 he accepted a call

to Leipzig, where he died on the 4th of March 1890. Delitzsch was a

strict Lutheran. "By the banner of our Lutheran confession let us

stand," he said in 1888; "folding ourselves in it, let us die" (T. K.

Cheyne, _Founders_, p. 160). Greatly interested in the Jews, he longed

ardently for their conversion to Christianity; and with a view to this

he edited the periodical _Saat auf Hoffnung_ from 1863, revived the

"Institutum Judaicum" in 1880, founded a Jewish missionary college for

the training of theologians, and translated the _New Testament_ into

Hebrew. He acquired such a mastery of post-biblical, rabbinic and

talmudic literature that he has been called the "Christian Talmudist."

Though never an advanced critic, his article on Daniel in the second

edition of Herzog's _Realencyklopadie_, his _New Commentary on Genesis_

and the fourth edition of his _Isaiah_ show that as years went on his

sympathy with higher criticism increased--so much so indeed that Prof.

Cheyne has included him among its founders.

He wrote a number of very valuable commentaries on _Habakkuk_ (1843),

_Genesis_ (1852, 4th ed. 1872), _Neuer Kommentar uber die Genesis_

(1887, Eng. trans. 1888, &c.), _Psalms_ (4th ed. 1883, Eng. trans. 1886,

&c.), _Job_ (2nd ed., 1876), _Isaiah_ (4th ed. 1889, Eng. trans. 1890,

&c.), _Proverbs_ (1873), _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1857, Eng. trans.

1865, &c.), _Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes_ (4th ed., 1875). Other

works are _Geschichte der jud. Poesie_ (1836); _Jesus und Hillel_ (1867,

3rd ed. 1879); _Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu_ (1868, 3rd ed. 1878, Eng.

trans. in the "Unit Library," 1902); _Ein Tag in Kapernaum_ (1871, 3rd

ed. 1886); _Poesieen aus vormuhammedanischer Zeit_ (1874); _Iris,

Farbenstudien und Blumenstucke_ (1888, Eng. trans. 1889); _Messianische

Weissagungen in geschichtlicher Folge_ (1890, 2nd ed. 1898). His Hebrew

_New Testament_ reached its eleventh edition in 1891, and his popular

devotional work _Das Sakrament des wahren Leibes und Blutes Jesu

Christi_ its seventh edition in 1886.

His son, FRIEDRICH DELITZSCH (b. 1850), became well known as professor

of Assyriology in Berlin, and the author of many books of great research

and learning, especially on oriental philology. Among other works of

importance he wrote _Wo lag das Paradies?_ (1881), and _Babel und Bibel_

(1902, 1903, Eng. trans. 1903).

DELITZSCH, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Saxony, on the

Lober, an affluent of the Mulde, 12 m. north of Leipzig at the junction

of the railways, Bitterfeld-Leipzig and Halle-Cottbus. Pop. (1905)

10,479. Its public buildings comprise an old castle of the 14th century

now used as a female penitentiary, a Roman Catholic and three Protestant

churches, a normal college (_Schullehrerseminar_) established in 1873

and several other educational institutions. Besides _Kuhschwanz_, a

peculiar kind of beer, it manufactures tobacco, cigars, shoes and

hosiery; and coal-mining is carried on in the neighbourhood, It was the

birthplace of the naturalist Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg (1795-1876),

and the political economist Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch (1808-1883), to

the latter of whom a statue has been erected. Originally a settlement of

the Sorbian Wends, and in the 12th century part of the possessions of

the bishops of Merseburg, Delitzsch ultimately passed to the

Saxe-Merseburg family, and, on their extinction in 1738, was

incorporated with Electoral Saxony.

DELIUS, NIKOLAUS (1813-1888), German philologist and Shakespearean

scholar, was born at Bremen on the 19th of September 1813. He was

educated at Bonn and Berlin, and took the degree of doctor in philosophy

in 1838. After travelling for some time in England, France and Germany,

he returned to Bonn in 1846, where in 1855 he was appointed professor of

Sanskrit, Provencal and English literature, a post he held until his

death, which took place at Bonn on the 18th of November 1888. His

greatest literary achievement was his scholarly edition of Shakespeare

(1854-1861). He also edited Wace's _St Nicholas_ (1850), a volume of

Provencal songs (1853), and published a _Shakspere-Lexikon_ (1852). His

original works include: _Uber das englische Theaterwesen zu Shaksperes

Zeit_ (1853), _Gedichte_ (1853), _Der sardinische Dialekt des

dreizehnten Jahrhunderts_ (1868), and _Abhandlungen zu Shakspere_ (two

series, 1878 and 1888). As a critic of Shakespeare's text he stands in

the first rank.

See the biographical notice by J. Schipper in _Englische Studien_,

vol. 14.

DELLA BELLA, STEFANO (1610-1664), Italian engraver, was born at

Florence. He was apprenticed to a goldsmith; but some prints of Callot

having fallen into his hands, he began to turn his attention entirely

towards engraving, and studied the art under Canta Gallina, who had also

been the instructor of Callot. By the liberality of Lorenzo de' Medici

he was enabled to spend three years in study at Rome. In 1642 he went to

Paris, where Cardinal Richelieu engaged him to go to Arras and make

drawings of the siege and taking of that town by the royal army. After

residing a considerable time at Paris he returned to Florence, where he

obtained a pension from the grand duke, whose son, Cosmo, he instructed

in drawing. His productions were very numerous, amounting to over 1400

separate pieces.

DELLA CASA, GIOVANNI (1503-1556), Italian poet, was born at Mugillo, in

Tuscany, in 1503. He studied at Bologna, Florence and Rome, and by his

learning attracted the patronage of Alexander Farnese, who, as Pope Paul

III., made him nuncio to Florence, where he received the honour of being

elected a member of the celebrated academy, and then to Naples, where

his oratorical ability brought him considerable success. His reward was

the archbishopric of Benevento, and it was believed that it was only his

openly licentious poem, _Capitoli del forno_, and the fact that the

French court seemed to desire his elevation, which prevented him from

being raised to a still higher dignity. He died in 1556. Casa is chiefly

remarkable as the leader of a reaction in lyric poetry against the

universal imitation of Petrarch, and as the originator of a style,

which, if less soft and elegant, was more nervous and majestic than that

which it replaced. His prose writings gained great reputation in their

own day, and long afterwards, but are disfigured by apparent straining

after effect, and by frequent puerility and circumlocution. The

principal are--in Italian, the famous _Il Galateo_ (1558), a treatise of

manners, which has been translated into several languages, and in Latin,

_De officiis_, and translations from Thucydides, Plato and Aristotle.

A complete edition of his works was published at Florence in 1707, to

which is prefixed a life by Casotti. The best edition is that of

Venice, 1752.

DELLA COLLE, RAFFAELLINO, Italian painter, was born at Colle, near Borgo

San Sepolcro, in Tuscany, about 1490. A pupil of Raphael, whom he is

held to have assisted in the Farnesina and the Vatican, Della Colle,

after his master's death, was the assistant of his chief scholar, Giulio

Romano, at Rome and afterwards at Mantua. In 1536, on the occasion of

the entry of Charles V. into Florence, he took service in that city

under Vasari. In his later years Della Colle resided at Borgo San

Sepolcro, where he kept a school of design; among his many pupils of

note may be mentioned Gherardi and Vecchi. His works, which are to be

found at Urbino, at Perugia, at Pesaro and at Gubbio, are fine examples

of the Roman school of Raphael. The best are a painting of the Almighty

supported by angels, a Resurrection and an Assumption, all preserved in

churches at Borgo San Sepolcro.

DELLA GHERARDESCA, UGOLINO (c. 1220-1289), count of Donoratico, was the

head of the powerful family of Gherardesca, the chief Ghibelline house

of Pisa. His alliance with the Visconti, the leaders of the Guelph

faction, through the marriage of his sister with Giovanni Visconti,

judge of Gallura, aroused the suspicions of his party, and the

Ghibellines being then predominant in Pisa, the disorders in the city

caused by Ugolino and Visconti in 1271-1274 led to the arrest of the

former and the banishment of the latter. Visconti died soon afterwards,

and Ugolino, no longer regarded as dangerous, was liberated and

banished. But he immediately began to intrigue with the Guelph towns

opposed to Pisa, and with the help of Charles I. of Anjou (q.v.)

attacked his native city and forced it to make peace on humiliating

terms, pardoning him and all the other Guelph exiles. He lived quietly

in Pisa for some years, although working all the time to extend his

influence. War having broken out between Pisa and Genoa in 1284, Count

Ugolino was given the command of a division of the Pisan fleet. It was

by his flight--usually attributed to treachery--that the fortunes of the

day were decided and the Pisans totally defeated at La Meloria (October

1284). But the political ability which he afterwards displayed led to

his being appointed _podesta_ for a year and _capitano del popolo_ for

ten years. Florence and Lucca took advantage of the Pisan defeat to

attack the republic, but Ugolino succeeded in pacifying them by ceding

certain castles. He was however less anxious to make peace with Genoa,

for the return of the Pisan prisoners, including most of the leading

Ghibellines, would have diminished his power. He was now the most

influential man in Pisa, and was preparing to establish his absolute

sovereignty, when for some reason not clearly understood he was forced

to share his power with his nephew Nino Visconti, son of Giovanni. The

duumvirate did not last, and the count and Nino soon quarrelled. Then

Ugolino tried to consolidate his position by entering into negotiations

with the archbishop, Ruggieri degli Ubaldini, the leader of the

Ghibellines. But that party having revived once more, the archbishop

obliged both Nino and Ugolino to leave the city, and had himself elected

_podesta_ and _capitano del popolo_. However, he allowed Ugolino to

return soon afterwards, and was even ready to divide the government of

the city with him, although he refused to admit his armed followers. The

count, determined to be sole master, attempted to get his followers into

the city by way of the Arno, and Ruggieri, realizing the danger, aroused

the citizens, accusing Ugolino of treachery for having ceded the

castles, and after a day's street fighting (July 1, 1288), Gherardesca

was captured and immured together with his sons Gaddo and Uguccione, and

his grandsons Nino (surnamed _il Brigata_) and Anselmuccio, in the Muda,

a tower belonging to the Gualandi family; here they were detained for

nine months, and then starved to death.

The historic details of the episode are still involved in some

obscurity, and although mentioned by Villani and other writers, it owes

its fame entirely to Dante, who placed Ugolino and Ruggieri in the

second ring (_Antenora_) of the lowest circle of the _Inferno_ (canto

xxxii. 124-140 and xxxiii. 1-90). This terrible but magnificent passage,

which includes "thirty lines unequalled by any other thirty lines in the

whole dominion of poetry" (Landor), has been paraphrased by Chaucer in

the "Monk's Tale" and more recently by Shelley. But the reason why Dante

placed Ugolino among the traitors is not by any means clear, as the

flight from La Meloria was not regarded as treachery by any writer

earlier than the 16th century, although G. del Noce, in _Il Conte U.

della Gherardesca_ (Citta di Castello, 1894), states that that was the

only motive; Bartoli, in vol. vi. of his _Storia della Letteratura

italiana_, suggests Ugolino's alliance with the Ghibellines as the

motive. The cession of the castles was not treachery but an act of

necessity, owing to the desperate conditions of Pisa.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Besides the above-quoted works see P. Tronci, _Annali

Pisani_ (2 vols., Pisa, 1868-1871); S. de Sismondi, _Histoire des

republiques italiennes_ (Brussels, 1838); also the various annotated

editions of Dante, especially W. W. Vernon's _Readings from the

Inferno_, vol. ii. (2nd ed., London, 1905). (L. V.*)

DELLA PORTA, GIOVANNI BATTISTA (c. 1538-1615), Italian natural

philosopher, was born of a noble and ancient family at Naples about the

year 1538. He travelled extensively not only in Italy but also in France

and Spain, and he was still a youth when he published _Magia naturalis,

sive de miraculis rerum naturalium lib. IV._ (1558), the first draft of

his _Magia naturalis_, in twenty books, published in 1589. He founded in

Naples the Academia Secretorum Naturae, otherwise known as the Accademia

dei Oziosi; and in 1610 he became a member of the Accademia dei Lincei

at Rome. He died at Naples on the 4th of February 1615.

The following is a list of his principal writings:--_De miraculis rerum

naturalium_, in four books (1558); _De furtivis litterarum notis_, in

five books (1563, and frequently afterwards, entitling him to high rank

among the early writers on cryptography); _Phytognomonica_ (1583, a

bulky treatise on the physiology of plants as then understood); _Magia

naturalis_ (1589, and often reprinted); _De humana physiognomonia_, in

six books (1591); _Villa_, in twelve books (1592, an interesting

practical treatise on farming, gardening and arboriculture, based upon

his own observations at his country-seat near Naples); _De refractione,

optices parte_, in nine books (1593); _Pneumatica_, in three books

(1601); _De coelesti physiognomonia_, in six books (1601); _Elementa

curvilinea_ (1601); _De distillatione_, in nine books (1604); _De

munitione_, in three books (1608); and _De aeris transmutationibus_, in

four books (1609). He also wrote several Italian comedies _Olimpia_

(1589); _La Fantesca_ (1592); _La Trappolaria_ (1597); _I' Due Fratelli

rivali_ (1601); _La Sorella_ (1607); _La Chiappinaria_ (1609); _La

Carbonaria_ (1628); _La Cintia_ (1628). Among all the above-mentioned

works the chief interest attaches to the _Magia naturalis_, in which a

strange medley of subjects is discussed, including the reproduction of

animals, the transmutation of metals, pyrotechny, domestic economy,

statics, hunting, the preparation of perfumes. In book xvii. he

describes a number of optical experiments, including a description of

the camera obscura (q.v.).

DELLA QUERCIA, or DELLA FONTE, JACOPO (1374-1438), Italian sculptor, was

born at Siena. He was the son of a goldsmith of repute, Pietro d'Agnolo,

to whom he doubtless owed much of his training. There are no records of

his early life until the year 1394, when he made an equestrian statue of

Gian Tedesco. He is next heard of at Florence in 1402, when he was one

of six artists who submitted designs for the great gates of the

baptistery, in which competition Ghiberti was the victor. From Florence

he seems to have gone to Lucca, where in 1406 he executed one of his

finest works, the monument of Ilaria del Caretto, wife of Paolo Guinigi.

It is uncertain if he visited Ferrara in 1408; but at the end of that

year he was engaged in negotiations which resulted in his acceptance of

the commission for the famous Fonte Gaia, at Siena, early in 1409. This

work was not seriously begun by him until 1414, and was only finished in

1419. In 1858 the remains of the fountain were removed to the Opera del

Duomo, where they are now preserved; a copy of the original by Sarrocchi

being erected on the site. After another visit to Lucca in 1422, he

returned to Siena, and in March 1425 undertook the contract for the

doors of S. Petronio, Bologna. He is known, in following years, to have

been to Milan, Verona, Ferrara and Venice; but the rest of his life was

chiefly divided between his native city and Bologna. In 1430 he finished

the great font of S. Giovanni at Siena, which he had begun in 1417,

contributing himself only one of the bas-reliefs, "Zacharias in the

Temple," the others being by Ghiberti, Donatello and other sculptors.

Among the work known to have been done by Jacopo, may be mentioned also

the reliefs of the _predella_ of the altar of S. Frediano at Lucca

(1422); and the Bentivoglio monument which was unfinished at the time

of his death on the 20th of October 1438. Jacopo della Quercia's work

exercised a powerful influence on that of the artists of the later

Italian Renaissance. He himself reflects not a little of the Gothic

spirit, admirably intermixed with some of the best qualities of

neo-classicism. He was an artist whose powers have hardly yet received

the recognition they undoubtedly deserve.

See C. Cornelius, _Jacopo della Quercia: eine Kunsthistorische Studie_

(1896), and works relating generally to the arts in Siena.

(E. F. S.)

DELLA ROBBIA, the name of a family of great distinction in the annals of

Florentine art. Its members are enumerated in chronological order

below.[1]

I. LUCA DELLA ROBBIA (1399 or 1400[2]-1482) was the son of a Florentine

named Simone di Marco della Robbia. According to Vasari, whose account

of Luca's early life is little to be trusted, he was apprenticed to the

silversmith Leonardo di Ser Giovanni, who from 1355 to 1371 was working

on the grand silver altar frontal for the cathedral at Pistoia (q.v.);

this, however, appears doubtful from the great age which it would give

to Leonardo, and it is more probable that Luca was the pupil of

Ghiberti. During the early part of his life Luca executed many important

and exceedingly beautiful pieces of sculpture in marble and bronze. In

technical skill he was quite the equal of Ghiberti, and, while

possessing all Donatello's vigour, dramatic power and originality, he

very frequently excelled him in grace of attitude and soft beauty of

expression. No sculptured work of the great 15th century ever surpassed

the singing gallery which Luca made for the cathedral at Florence

between 1431 and 1440, with its ten magnificent panels of singing angels

and dancing boys, far exceeding in beauty those which Donatello in 1433

sculptured for the opposite gallery in the same choir. This splendid

work is now to be found in the Museo del Duomo. The general effect of

the whole can also be seen at the Victoria and Albert Museum, where a

complete cast is fixed to the wall. The same museum possesses a study in

_gesso duro_ for one of the panels, which appears to be the original

sketch by Luca's own hand.

In May 1437 Luca received a commission from the signoria of Florence to

execute five reliefs for the north side of the campanile, to complete

the series begun by Giotto and Andrea Pisano. These panels are so much

in the earlier style of Giotto that we must conclude that he had left

drawings from which Luca worked. They have representative figures chosen

to typify grammar, logic, philosophy, music, and science,--the last

represented by Euclid and Ptolemy.[3] In 1438 Luca in association with

Donatello received an order for two marble altars for chapels in the

cathedral. The reliefs from one of them--St Peter's Deliverance from

Prison and his Crucifixion--are now in the Bargello. It is probable that

these altars were never finished. A tabernacle for the host, made by

Luca in 1442, is now at Peretola, near Florence, in the church of S.

Maria. A document in the archives of S. Maria Nuova at Florence shows

that he received for this 700 florins 1 lira 16 soldi (about L1400 of

modern money). In 1437 Donatello received a commission to cast a bronze

door for one of the sacristies of the cathedral; but, as he delayed to

execute this order, the work was handed over to Luca on the 28th of

February 1446, with Michelozzo and Maso di Bartolomeo as his assistants.

Part of this wonderful door was cast in 1448, and the last two panels

were finished by Luca in 1467, with bronze which was supplied to him by

Verrocchio.[4] The door is divided into ten square panels, with small

heads in the style of Ghiberti projecting from the framing. The two top

subjects are the Madonna and Child and the Baptist, next come the four

Evangelists, and below are the four Latin Doctors, each subject with

attendant angels. The whole is modelled with perfect grace and dignified

simplicity; the heads throughout are full of life, and the treatment of

the drapery in broad simple folds is worthy of a Greek sculptor of the

best period of Hellenic art. These exquisite reliefs are perfect models

of plastic art, and are quite free from the over-elaboration and too

pictorial style of Ghiberti. Fig. 1 shows one of the panels.

[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Bronze Relief of one of the Latin Doctors, from

the sacristy door in the cathedral of Florence, by Luca.]

The most important existing work in marble by Luca (executed in

1454-1456) is the tomb of Benozzo Federighi, bishop of Fiesole,

originally placed in the church of S. Pancrazio at Florence, but removed

to S. Francesco di Paola on the Bellosguardo road outside the city in

1783. In 1898 it was again removed to the church of SS. Trinita in

Florence. A very beautiful effigy of the bishop in a restful pose lies

on a sarcophagus sculptured with graceful reliefs of angels holding a

wreath which contains the inscription. Above are three-quarter length

figures of Christ between St John and the Virgin, of conventional type.

The whole is surrounded by a rectangular frame formed of painted tiles

of exquisite beauty, but out of keeping with the memorial. On each tile

is painted, with enamel pigments, a bunch of flowers and fruit in

brilliant realistic colours, the loveliness of which is very hard to

describe. Though the bunch of flowers on each is painted on one slab,

the ground of each tile is formed of separate pieces, fitted together

like a kind of mosaic, probably because the pigment of the ground

required a different degree of heat in firing from that needed for the

enamel painting of the centre. The few other works of this class which

exist do not approach the beauty of this early essay in tile painting,

on which Luca evidently put forth his utmost skill and patience.

In the latter part of his life Luca was mainly occupied with the

production of terra-cotta reliefs covered with enamel, a process which

he improved upon, but did not invent, as Vasari asserts. The _rationale_

of this process was to cover the clay relief with an enamel formed of

the ordinary ingredients of glass (_marzacotto_), made white and opaque

by oxide of tin. (See CERAMICS: _Italian Majolica_.) Though Luca was not

the inventor of the process, yet he extended its application to fine

sculptured work in terra-cotta, so that it is not unnaturally known now

as Della Robbia ware; it must, however, be remembered that by far the

majority of these reliefs which in Italy and elsewhere are ascribed to

Luca are really the work of some of the younger members of the family or

of the _atelier_ which they founded. Comparatively few exist which can

with certainty be ascribed to Luca himself. Among the earliest of these

are medallions of the four Evangelists in the vault of Brunelleschi's

Pazzi chapel in S. Croce. These fine reliefs are coloured with various

metallic oxides in different shades of blue, green, purple, yellow and

black. It has often been asserted that the very polychromatic reliefs

belong to Andrea or his sons, and that Luca's were all in pure white, or

in white and blue; this, however, is not the case; colours were used as

freely by Luca as by his successors. A relief in the Victoria and Albert

Museum furnishes a striking example of this and is of especial value

from its great size, and also because its date is known. This is an

enormous medallion containing the arms of Rene of Anjou and other

heraldic devices; it is surrounded by a splendidly modelled wreath of

fruit and flowers, especially apples, lemons, oranges and fir cones, all

of which are brilliantly coloured. This medallion was set up on the

facade of the Pazzi Palace to commemorate Rene's visit to Florence in

1442. Other reliefs by Luca, also in glazed terra-cotta, are those of

the Ascension and Resurrection in the tympani of the doors of the

sacristies in the cathedral, executed in 1443 and 1446. Other existing

works of Luca in Florence are the tympanum reliefs of the Madonna

between two Angels in the Via dell' Agnolo, a work of exquisite beauty,

and another formerly over the door of S. Pierino del Mercato Vecchio,

but now removed to the Bargello (No. 29). The only existing statues by

Luca are two lovely enamelled figures of kneeling angels holding

candlesticks, now in the canons' sacristy.[5] A very fine work by Luca,

executed between 1449 and 1452, is the tympanum relief of the Madonna

and four Monastic Saints over the door of S. Domenico at Urbino.[6] Luca

also made the four coloured medallions of the Virtues set in the vault

over the tomb of the young cardinal-prince of Portugal in a side chapel

of S. Miniato in Florence (see ROSSELLINO). By Luca also are various

polychromatic medallions outside Or San Michele.[7] One of his chief

decorative works which no longer exists was a small library or study for

Piero de' Medici, wholly lined with enamelled plaques and reliefs.[8]

The Victoria and Albert Museum possesses twelve circular plaques of

majolica ware painted in blue and white with the Occupations of the

Months; these have been attributed to Luca, under the idea that they

formed part of the decoration of this room, but their real origin is

doubtful.

In 1471 Luca was elected president of the Florentine Gild of Sculptors,

but he refused this great honour on account of his age and infirmity. It

shows, however, the very high estimation in which he was held by his

contemporaries. He died on the 20th of February 1482, leaving his

property to his nephews Andrea and Simone.[9] His chief pupil was his

nephew Andrea, and Agostino di Duccio, who executed many pieces of

sculpture at Rimini, and the graceful but mannered marble reliefs of

angels on the facade of S. Bernardino at Perugia, may have been one of

his assistants.[10] Vasari calls this Agostino Luca's brother, but he

was not related to him at all.

II. ANDREA DELLA ROBBIA (1435-1525), the nephew and pupil of Luca,

carried on the production of the enamelled reliefs on a much larger

scale than his uncle had ever done; he also extended its application to

various architectural uses, such as friezes and to the making of lavabos

(lavatories), fountains and large retables. The result of this was that,

though the finest reliefs from the workshop of Andrea were but little if

at all inferior to those from the hand of Luca, yet some of them, turned

out by pupils and assistants, reached only a lower standard of merit.

Only one work in marble by Andrea is known, namely, an altar in S. Maria

delle Grazie near Arezzo, mentioned by Vasari (ed. Milanesi, ii. p.

179), and still well preserved.

[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Enamelled Clay Relief of Virgin and Child, by

Andrea.]

One variety of method was introduced by Andrea in his enamelled work;

sometimes he omitted the enamel on the face and hands (nude parts) of

his figures, especially in those cases where he had treated the heads in

a realistic manner; as, for example, in the noble tympanum relief of the

meeting of St Domenic and St Francis in the loggia of the Florentine

hospital of S. Paolo,--a design suggested by a fresco of Fra Angelico's

in the cloister of St Mark's. One of the most remarkable works by Andrea

is the series of medallions with reliefs of Infants in white on a blue

ground set on the front of the foundling hospital at Florence. These

lovely child-figures are modelled with wonderful skill and variety, no

two being alike. Andrea produced, for gilds and private persons, a large

number of reliefs of the Madonna and Child varied with much invention,

and all of extreme beauty of pose and sweetness of expression. These are

frequently framed with realistic yet decorative garlands of fruit and

flowers painted with coloured enamels, while the main relief is left

white. Fig. 2 shows a good example of these smaller works. The hospital

of S. Paolo, near S. Maria Novella, has also a number of fine medallions

with reliefs of saints, two of Christ Healing the Sick, and two fine

portraits, under which are white plaques inscribed--"DALL ANNO 1451 ALL

ANNO 1495"[11]; the first of these dates is the year when the hospital

was rebuilt owing to a papal brief sent to the archbishop of Florence.

Arezzo possesses a number of fine enamelled works by Andrea and his

sons--a retable in the cathedral with God holding the Crucified Christ,

surrounded by angels, and below, kneeling figures of S. Donato and S.

Bernardino; also in the chapel of the Campo Santo is a fine relief of

the Madonna and Child with four saints at the sides. In S. Maria in

Grado is a very noble retable with angels holding a crown over a

standing figure of the Madonna; a number of small figures of worshippers

take refuge in the folds of the Virgin's mantle, a favourite motive for

sculpture dedicated by gilds or other corporate bodies. Perhaps the

finest collection of works of this class is at La Verna, not far from

Arezzo (see Vasari, ed. Milanesi, ii. p. 179). The best of these, three

large retables with representations of the Annunciation, the

Crucifixion, and the Madonna giving her Girdle to St Thomas, are

probably the work of Andrea himself, the others being by his sons. In

1489 Andrea made a beautiful relief of the Virgin and two Angels, now

over the archive-room door in the Florentine Opera del Duomo; for this

he was paid twenty gold florins (see Cavallucci, _S. Maria del Fiore_).

In the same year he modelled the fine tympanum relief over a door of

Prato cathedral, with a half-length figure of the Madonna between St

Stephen and St Lawrence, surrounded by a frame of angels' heads.

In 1491 he was still working at Prato, where many of his best reliefs

still exist. A fine bust of S. Lino exists over the side door of the

cathedral at Volterra, which is attributed to Andrea. Other late works

of known date are a magnificent bust of the Protonotary Almadiano, made

in 1510 for the church of S. Giovanni de' Fiorentini at Viterbo, now

preserved in the Palazzo Communale there, and a medallion of the Virgin

in Glory, surrounded by angels, made in 1505 for Pistoia cathedral.[12]

The latest work attributed to Andrea, though apparently only a workshop

production of 1515, is a relief representing the Adoration of the Magi,

made for a little church, St Maria, in Pian di Mugnone, near

Florence.[13] Portions of this work are still in the church, but some

fragments of it are at Oxford.

III., IV. Five of Andrea's seven sons worked with their father, and

after his death carried on the Robbia fabrique; the dates of their birth

are shown in the table on p. 838 _ante_. Early in life two of them came

under the influence of Savonarola, and took monastic orders at his

Dominican convent; these were MARCO, who adopted the name of Fra Luca,

and PAOLO, called Fra Ambrogio. One relief by the latter, a Nativity

with four life-sized figures of rather poor work, is in the Cappella

degli Spagnuoli in the Sienese convent of S. Spirito; a MS. in the

convent archives records that it was made in 1504.

V. The chief existing work known to be by the second LUCA[14] is the

very rich and beautiful tile pavement in the uppermost story of

Raphael's loggie at the Vatican, finely designed and painted in

harmonious majolica colours. This was made by Luca at Raphael's request

and under his supervision in 1518.[15] It is still in very fine

preservation.

VI. GIOVANNI DELLA ROBBIA (1460-1529?) during a great part of his life

worked as assistant to his father, Andrea, and in many cases the

enamelled sculpture of the two cannot be distinguished. Some of

Giovanni's independent works are of great merit, especially the earlier

ones; during the latter part of his life his reliefs deteriorated in

style, owing mainly to the universal decadence of the time. A very large

number of pieces of Robbia ware which are attributed to Andrea, and even

to the elder Luca, were really by the hand of Giovanni. One of his

finest works is a large retable at Volterra in the church of S.

Girolamo, dated 1501; it represents the Last Judgment, and is remarkable

for the fine modelling of the figures, especially that of the archangel

Michael, and a nude kneeling figure of a youth who has just risen from

his tomb. Quite equal in beauty to anything of his father's, from whom

the design of the figures was probably taken, is the washing-fountain in

the sacristy of S. Maria Novella at Florence, made in 1497.[16] It is a

large arched recess with a view of the seashore, not very decorative in

style, painted on majolica tiles at the back. There are also two very

beautiful painted majolica panels of fruit-trees let into the lower

part. In the tympanum of the arch is a very lovely white relief of the

Madonna between two Adoring Angels (see fig. 3). Long coloured garlands

of fruit and flowers are held by nude boys reclining on the top of the

arch and others standing on the cornice. All this part is of enamelled

clay, but the basin of the fountain is of white marble. Neither Luca nor

Andrea was in the habit of signing his work, but Giovanni often did so,

usually adding the date, probably because other potters had begun to

imitate the Robbia ware.[17]

[Illustration: FIG. 3.--Relief of Madonna and Angels in the tympanum of

the lavabo (S. Maria Novella, Florence), by Giovanni.]

Giovanni lacked the original talent of Luca and Andrea, and so he not

only copied their work but even reproduced in clay the marble sculpture

of Pollaiuolo, Da Settignano, Verrocchio and others. A relief by him,

evidently taken from Mino da Fiesole, exists in the Palazzo Castracane

Staccoli. Among the very numerous other works of Giovanni are a relief

in the wall of a suppressed convent in the Via Nazionale at Florence,

and two reliefs in the Bargello dated 1521 and 1522. That dated 1521 is

a many-coloured relief of the Nativity, and was taken from the church of

S. Girolamo in Florence; it is a too pictorial work, marred by the use

of many different planes. Its predella has a small relief of the

Adoration of the Magi, and is inscribed "Hoc opus fecit Ioaes Andee de

Robia, ac a posuit hoc in tempore die ultima lulli ANO. DNI. M.D. XXI."

At Pisa in the Campo Santo is a relief in Giovanni's later and poorer

manner dated 1520; it is a Madonna surrounded by angels, with saints

below--the whole overcrowded with figures and ornaments. Giovanni's

largest and perhaps finest work is the polychromatic frieze on the

outside of the Del Ceppo hospital at Pistoia, for which he received

various sums of money between 1525 and 1529, as is recorded in documents

which still exist among the archives of the hospital.[18] The subjects

of this frieze are the Seven Works of Mercy, forming a continuous band

of sculpture in high relief, well modelled and designed in a very broad

sculpturesque way, but disfigured by the crudeness of some of its

colouring. Six of these reliefs are by Giovanni, namely, Clothing the

Naked, Washing the Feet of Pilgrims, Visiting the Sick, Visiting

Prisoners, Burying the Dead, and Feeding the Hungry. The seventh, Giving

drink to the Thirsty, was made by Filippo Paladini of Pistoia in 1585;

this last is simply made of painted stucco. The large figures of the

virtues placed between the scenes, and the medallions between the

pillars, are the work of assistants or imitators.

A large octagonal font of enamelled clay, with pilasters at the angles

and panels between them with scenes from the life of the Baptist, in the

church of S. Leonardo at Cerreto Guidi, is a work of the school of

Giovanni; the reliefs are pictorial in style and coarse in execution.

Giovanni's chief pupil was a man named Benedetto Buglioni (1461-1521),

and a pupil of his, one Santi Buglioni (b. 1494), entered the Robbia

workshops in 1521, and assisted in the later works of Giovanni.

VII. GIROLAMO DELLA ROBBIA (1488-1566), another of Andrea's sons, was an

architect and a sculptor in marble and bronze as well as in enamelled

clay. During the first part of his life he, like his brothers, worked

with his father, but in 1528 he went to France and spent nearly forty

years in the service of the French Royal family. Francis I. employed him

to build a palace in the Bois de Boulogne called the Chateau de Madrid.

This was a large well-designed building, four storeys high, two of them

having open loggie in the Italian fashion. Girolamo decorated it richly

with terra-cotta medallions, friezes and other architectural

features.[19] For this purpose he set up kilns at Suresnes. Though the

palace itself has been destroyed, drawings of it exist.[20]

The best collections of Robbia ware are in the Florentine Bargello,

Accademia and Museo del Duomo; the Victoria and Albert Museum (the

finest out of Italy); the Louvre, the Cluny and the Berlin Museums;

while fine examples are to be found in New York, Boston, St Petersburg

and Vienna. Many fine specimens exist in private collections in England,

France, Germany and the United States. The greater part of the Robbia

work still remains in the churches and other buildings of Italy,

especially in Florence, Fiesole, Arezzo, La Verna, Volterra, Barga,

Montepulciano, Lucca, Pistoia, Prato and Siena.

LITERATURE.--H. Barbet de Jouy, _Les della Robbia_ (Paris, 1855); W.

Bode, _Die Kunstlerfamilie della Robbia_ (Leipzig, 1878); "Luca della

Robbia ed i suoi precursori in Firenze," _Arch. stor. dell' arte_

(1899); "Uber Luca della Robbia," _Sitzungsbericht von der Berliner

kunstgeschichtlichen Gesellschaft_ (1896); _Florentiner Bildhauer der

Renaissance_ (Berlin, 1902); G. Carocci, _I Dintorni de Firenze_

(Florence, 1881); "Il Monumento di Benozzo Federighi," _Arte e Storia_

(1894); "Opere Robbiane poco noti," _Arte e storia_ (1898, 1899);

Cavallucci et Molinier, _Les della Robbia_ (Paris, 1884); Maud

Crutwell, _Luca and Andrea della Robbia and their Successors_ (London,

1902); A. du Cerceau, _Les plus excellents bastiments de France_

(Paris, 1586); G. Milanesi, _Le Vite scritte da Vasari_ (Florence,

1878); M. Reymond, _Les della Robbia_ (Florence, 1897); _La Sculpture

Florentine_ (Florence, 1898); I. B. Supino, _Catalogo del R. Museo di

Firenze_ (Rome 1898); Vasari (see Milanesi's edition).

(J. H. M.; W. B.*)