DOMENICHINO (or DOMENICO), ZAMPIERI (1581-1641), Italian painter, born

at Bologna, on the 21st of October 1581, was the son of a shoemaker. The

diminutive form of Christian name by which he is constantly known

indicates his short stature. He was placed, when young, under the

tuition of Denis Calvart; but having been treated with great severity by

that master, he left him, and became a pupil in the academy of the

Caracci, under Agostino. Towards the beginning of the 17th century he

went to Rome, at the invitation of his fellow-pupil and intimate Albani,

and prosecuted his studies under Annibale Caracci. The faculty of

Domenichino was slow in its development. He was at first timid and

distrustful of his powers; while his studious, unready and reserved

manners were misunderstood by his companions for dulness, and he

obtained the nickname of the "Ox" (Bue). But Annibale Caracci, who

observed his faculties with more attention, predicted that the apparent

slowness of Domenichino's genius would in time produce what would be an

honour to the art of painting. When his early productions had brought

him into notice, he studied with extreme application, and made such

advance as to raise his works into a comparison with those of the most

admired masters of the time. From his acting as a continual censor of

his own works, he became distinguished amongst his fellow-pupils as an

accurate and expressive designer; his colours were the truest to nature;

Mengs, indeed, found nothing to desire in his works, except a somewhat

larger proportion of elegance. That he might devote his whole powers to

the art, Domenichino shunned all society; or, if he occasionally sought

it in the public theatres and walks, this was in order better to observe

the play of the passions in the features of the people--those of joy,

anger, grief, terror and every affection of the mind--and to commit them

vividly to his tablets; thus, says Bellori, it was that he succeeded in

delineating the soul, in colouring life, and calling forth heartfelt

emotions, at which all his works aim. In personal character he is

credited with temperance and modesty; but, besides his want of

sociability, he became somewhat suspicious, and jealous of his master.

In Rome, Domenichino obtained employment from Cardinals Borghese,

Farnese and Aldobrandini, for all of whom he painted works in fresco.

The distinguished reputation which he had acquired excited the envy of

some of his contemporaries. Lanfranco in particular, one of his most

inveterate enemies, asserted that his celebrated "Communion of St

Jerome" (painted for the church of La Carita towards 1614, for a

pittance of about ten guineas, now in the Vatican Gallery, and

ordinarily, but most irrationally, spoken of as the second or third best

oil picture in the world) was an imitation from Agostino Caracci; and he

procured an engraving of this master's picture of the same subject (now

in the Gallery of Bologna), copies of which were circulated for the

purpose of proving that Domenichino was a plagiarist. There is in truth

a very marked resemblance between the two compositions. The pictures

which Zampieri painted immediately afterwards, representing subjects

from the life of St Cecilia, only increased the alarm of his

competitors, and redoubled their injustice and malignity. Disgusted with

these cabals, he left Rome for Bologna, where he remained until he was

recalled by Pope Gregory XV., who appointed him principal painter and

architect to the pontifical palace. In this architectural post he seems

to have done little or nothing, although he was not inexpert in the

art. He designed in great part the Villa di Belvedere at Frascati, and

the whole of the Villa Ludovisi, and some other edifices. From 1630

onwards Domenichino was engaged in Naples, chiefly on a series of

frescoes (never wholly completed) of the life of St Januarius in the

Cappella del Tesoro. He settled in that city with his family, and opened

a school. There the persecution against him became far more shameful

than in any previous instance. The notorious so-called "Cabal of

Naples"--the painters Corenzio, Ribera and Caracciolo--leagued together

as they were to exclude all alien competition, plagued and decried the

Bolognese artist in all possible ways; for instance, on returning in the

morning to his fresco work, he would find not infrequently that someone

had rubbed out the performance of the previous day. Perpetual worry is

believed to have brought the life of Domenichino to a close;

contemporary suspicion did not scruple to speak broadly of poison, but

this has remained unconfirmed. He died in Naples, after two days'

illness, on the 15th of April 1641.

Domenichino, in correctness of design, expression of the passions, and

simplicity and variety in the airs of his heads, has been considered

little inferior to Raphael; but in fact there is the greatest gulf fixed

between the two. Critics of the 18th century adulated the Bolognese

beyond all reason or toleration; he is now regarded as commonplace in

mind and invention, lacking any innate ideality, though undoubtedly a

forcible, resolute and learned executant. "We must," says Lanzi,

"despair to find paintings exhibiting richer or more varied draperies,

details of costume more beautifully adapted, or more majestic mantles.

The figures are finely disposed both in place and action, conducing to

the general effect; whilst a light pervades the whole which seems to

rejoice the spirit, growing brighter and brighter in the aspect of the

best countenances, whence they first attract the eye and heart of the

beholder. The persons delineated could not tell their tale to the ear

more plainly than they speak it to the eye. The 'Scourging of St

Andrew,' which he executed in competition with Guido Reni at Rome (a

fresco in the church of San Gregorio), is a powerful illustration of

this truthful expression. Of the two works of these masters, Annibale

Caracci preferred that of Domenichino. It is said that in painting one

of the executioners the artist actually wrought himself into a passion,

using threatening words and actions, and that Annibale Caracci,

surprising him at that moment, embraced him, exclaiming with joy,

'To-day, my dear Domenichino, thou art teaching me.' So novel, and at

the same time so natural, it appeared to him that the artist, like the

orator, should feel within himself all that he is representing to

others." Domenichino is esteemed the most distinguished disciple of the

Caracci, or second only to Guido Reni. Algarotti preferred him to the

greatest masters; and Nicolas Poussin considered the painter of the

"Communion of St Jerome" to be the first after Raphael. His pictures of

"Adam and Eve," and the "Martyrdom of St Agnes," in the Gallery of

Bologna, are amongst his leading works. Others of superior interest are

his first known picture, a fresco of the "Death of Adonis," in the

Loggia of the Giardino Farnese, Rome; the "Martyrdom of St Sebastian,"

in Santa Maria degli Angeli; the "Four Evangelists," in Sant' Andrea

della Valle; "Diana and her Nymphs," in the Borghese gallery; the

"Assumption of the Virgin," in Santa Maria di Trastevere; and frescoes

in the neighbouring abbey of Grotta Ferrata, lives of SS. Nilus and

Bartholomew. His portraits are also highly reputed. It is admitted that

in his compositions he often borrowed figures and arrangements from

previous painters. Domenichino was potent in fresco. He excelled also in

landscape painting. In that style (in which he was one of the earliest

practitioners) the natural elegance of his scenery, his trees, his

well-broken grounds, the character and expression of his figures, gained

him as much public admiration as any of his other performances.

See Bolognini, _Life of Domenichino_ (1839); C. Landon, _Works of

Domenichino, with a Memoir_ (1823). (W. M. R.)

DOMESDAY BOOK, or simply DOMESDAY, the record of the great survey of

England executed for William the Conqueror. We learn from the English

Chronicle that the scheme of this survey was discussed and determined

in the Christmas assembly of 1085, and from the colophon of Domesday

Book that the survey (_descriptio_) was completed in 1086. But Domesday

Book (_liber_) although compiled from the returns of that survey, must

be carefully distinguished from them; nor is it certain that it was

compiled in the year in which the survey was made. For the making of the

survey each county was visited by a group of royal officers (_legati_),

who held a public inquiry, probably in the great assembly known as the

county court, which was attended by representatives of every township as

well as of the local lords. The unit of inquiry was the Hundred (a

subdivision of the county which had then an administrative entity), and

the return for each Hundred was sworn to by twelve local jurors, half of

them English and half Normans. What is believed to be a full transcript

of these original returns is preserved for several of the Cambridgeshire

Hundreds, and is of great illustrative importance. The _Inquisitio

Eliensis_, the "Exon Domesday" (so called from the preservation of the

volume at Exeter), and the second volume of Domesday Book, also all

contain the full details which the original returns supplied.

The original MS. of Domesday Book consists of two volumes, of which the

second is devoted to the three eastern counties, while the first, which

is of much larger size, comprises the rest of England except the most

northerly counties. Of these the north-westerly portion, which had

Carlisle for its head, was not conquered till some years after the

survey was made; but the omission of Northumberland and Durham has not

been satisfactorily explained. There are also no surveys of London,

Winchester and some other towns. For both volumes the contents of the

returns were entirely rearranged and classified according to fiefs.

Instead of appearing under the Hundreds and townships they now appeared

under the names of the local "barons," i.e. those who held the lands

directly of the crown in fee. In each county the list opened with the

holding of the king himself (which had possibly formed the subject of

separate inquiry); then came those of the churchmen and religious

houses; next were entered those of the lay tenants-in-chief (_barones_);

and last of all those of women, of the king's serjeants (_servientes_),

of the few English "thegns" who retained land, and so forth. In some

counties one or more principal towns formed the subject of a separate

section; in some the _clamores_ (disputed titles to land) were similarly

treated apart. But this description applies more specially to the larger

and principal volume; in the smaller one the system is more confused,

the execution less perfect. The two volumes are distinguished even more

sharply by the exclusion, in the larger one, of certain details, such as

the enumeration of the live stock, which would have added greatly to its

size. It has, indeed, been suggested that the eastern counties' volume

represents a first attempt, and that it was found impossible, or at

least inconvenient, to complete the work on the same scale.

For the object of the survey we have three sources of information: (1)

the passage in the English Chronicle, which tells us why it was ordered,

(2) the list of questions which the jurors were asked, as preserved in

the _Inquisitio Eliensis_, (3) the contents of Domesday Book and the

allied records mentioned above. Although these can by no means be

reconciled in every detail, it is now generally recognized that the

primary object of the survey was to acertain and record the fiscal

rights of the king. These were mainly (1) the national land-tax

(_geldum_), paid on a fixed assessment, (2) certain miscellaneous dues,

(3) the proceeds of the crown lands. After a great political convulsion

such as the Norman conquest, and the wholesale confiscation of landed

estates which followed it, it was William's interest to make sure that

the rights of the crown, which he claimed to have inherited, had not

suffered in the process. More especially was this the case as his Norman

followers were disposed to evade the liabilities of their English

predecessors. The Domesday survey therefore recorded the names of the

new holders of lands and the assessments on which their tax was to be

paid. But it did more than this; by the king's instructions it

endeavoured to make a national valuation list, estimating the annual

value of all the land in the country, (1) at the time of King Edward's

death, (2) when the new owners received it, (3) at the time of the

survey, and further, it reckoned, by command, the potential value as

well. It is evident that William desired to know the financial resources

of his kingdom, and probable that he wished to compare them with the

existing assessment, which was one of considerable antiquity, though

there are traces that it had been occasionally modified. The great bulk

of Domesday Book is devoted to the somewhat arid details of the

assessment and valuation of rural estates, which were as yet the only

important source of national wealth. After stating the assessment of the

manor, the record sets forth the amount of arable land, and the number

of plough-teams (each reckoned at eight oxen) available for working it,

with the additional number (if any) that might be employed; then the

river-meadows, woodland, pasture, fisheries (i.e. weirs in the streams),

water-mills, saltpans (if by the sea) and other subsidiary sources of

revenue; the peasants are enumerated in their several classes; and

finally the annual value of the whole, past and present, is roughly

estimated. It is obvious that, both in its values and in its

measurements, the survey's reckoning is very crude.

Apart from the wholly rural portions, which constitute its bulk,

Domesday contains entries of interest concerning most of the towns,

which were probably made because of their bearing on the fiscal rights

of the crown therein. These include fragments of custumals, records of

the military service due, of markets, mints, and so forth. From the

towns, from the counties as wholes, and from many of its ancient

lordships, the crown was entitled to archaic dues in kind, such as

honey. The information of most general interest found in the great

record is that on political, personal, ecclesiastical and social

history, which only occurs sporadically and, as it were, by accident.

Much of this was used by E. A. Freeman for his work on the Norman

Conquest. Although unique in character and of priceless value to the

student, Domesday will be found disappointing and largely unintelligible

to any but the specialist. Even scholars are unable to explain portions

of its language and of its system. This is partly due to its very early

date, which has placed between it and later records a gulf that is hard

to bridge.

But in the _Dialogus de scaccario_ (_temp._ Hen. II.) it is spoken of as

a record from the arbitrament of which there was no appeal (from which

its popular name of "Domesday" is said to be derived). In the middle

ages its evidence was frequently invoked in the law-courts; and even now

there are certain cases in which appeal is made to its testimony. To the

topographer, as to the genealogist, its evidence is of primary

importance; for it not only contains the earliest survey of a township

or manor, but affords in the majority of cases the clue to its

subsequent descent. The rearrangement, on a feudal basis, of the

original returns (as described above) enabled the Conqueror and his

officers to see with ease the extent of a baron's possessions; but it

also had the effect of showing how far he had enfeoffed "under-tenants,"

and who those under-tenants were. This was of great importance to

William, not only for military reasons, but also because of his firm

resolve to make the under-tenants (though the "men" of their lords)

swear allegiance directly to himself. As Domesday normally records only

the Christian name of an under-tenant, it is vain to seek for the

surnames of families claiming a Norman origin; but much has been and is

still being done to identify the under-tenants, the great bulk of whom

bear foreign names.

Domesday Book was originally preserved in the royal treasury at

Winchester (the Norman kings' capital), whence it speaks of itself (in

one later addition) as _Liber de Wintonia_. When the treasury was

removed to Westminster (probably under Henry II.) the book went with it.

Here it remained until the days of Queen Victoria, being preserved from

1696 onwards in the Chapter House, and only removed in special

circumstances, as when it was sent to Southampton for photozincographic

reproduction. It was eventually placed in the Public Record Office,

London, where it can be seen in a glass case in the museum. In 1869 it

received a modern binding. The ancient Domesday chest, in which it used

to be kept, is also preserved in the building.

The printing of Domesday, in "record type," was begun by government in

1773, and the book was published, in two volumes fol. in 1783; in 1811 a

volume of indexes was added, and in 1816 a supplementary volume,

separately indexed, containing (1) the "Exon Domesday" (for the

south-western counties), (2) the _Inquisitio Eliensis_, (3) the _Liber

Winton_ (surveys of Winchester early in the 12th century), and (4) the

_Boldon Book_--a survey of the bishopric of Durham a century later than

Domesday. Photographic facsimiles of Domesday Book, for each county

separately, were published in 1861-1863, also by government.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The following are the more important works to be

consulted:--R. Kelham, _Domesday Book_, illustrated (1788); H. Ellis,

_General Introduction to Domesday Book_ (1833), 2 vols., containing

valuable indexes to the names of persons; N. E. S. A. Hamilton,

_Inquisitio Cantabrigiensis_ (1876), containing the only transcripts

of the original returns and the text of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_; E.

A. Freeman, _History of the Norman Conquest_, vols. iv. and v.; F.

Seebohm, _The English Village Community_ (1883); _Domesday Studies_, 2

vols. (1888, 1891), on the occasion of the Domesday Commemoration

(1886), by various writers, with bibliography to date; J. H. Round,

_Feudal England_ (1895); F. W. Maitland, _Domesday Book and Beyond_

(1897); P. Vinogradoff, _Villainage in England_ (1892) and _Growth of

the Manor_; A. Ballard, _The Domesday Boroughs_ (1904) and _The

Domesday Inquest_ (1906), an excellent summary; W. H. Stevenson, "A

contemporary description of the Domesday Survey" in _The English

Historical Review_ (the general index to which should be consulted)

(1907). _The Victoria County History_ contains a translation of the

Domesday text, a map, and an explanatory introduction for each county.

(J. H. R.)

DOMESTIC RELATIONS, a term used to express the legal relations

subsisting between the various units that comprise the family or

domestic group. Those units which go to build up the domestic structure

of modern society are parent, child, husband, wife, master and servant.

The law which deals with the various relations subsisting between them

is made up largely of the law of agency, of contract and of tort. See

HUSBAND AND WIFE; MASTER AND SERVANT; CHILDREN, _Law relating to_;

INFANT.

DOMETT, ALFRED (1811-1887), British colonial statesman and poet, was

born at Camberwell Grove, Surrey, on the 20th of May 1811. He entered St

John's College, Cambridge, but left the university in 1833. He published

one or two volumes of poetry and contributed several poems to

_Blackwood's Magazine_, one of which, "A Christmas Hymn," attracted much

admiring attention. For ten years he lived a life of ease in London,

where he became the intimate friend of Robert Browning, of whose poem

"Waring" he was the subject. An interesting account of the friendship

between the two men appeared in _The Contemporary Review_ for January

1905, by W. H. Griffin. (See also _Robert Browning and Alfred Domett_,

edited by F. G. Kenyon, 1906). In 1842 Domett emigrated to New Zealand

where he filled many important administrative posts, being colonial

secretary for New Munster in 1848, secretary for the colony in 1851, and

prime minister in 1862. He returned to England in 1871, was created

C.M.G. in 1880, and died on the 2nd of November 1887. Among his books of

poetry, _Ranolf and Amohia, a South Sea Day Dream_, is the best known

(1872), and _Flotsam and Jetsam_ (1877) is dedicated to Browning.

DOMFRONT, a town of north-western France, capital of an arrondissement

in the department of Orne, 43 m. W.N.W. of Alencon by rail. Pop. (1906)

of the town, 2215; of the commune, 4663. The town, which is

picturesquely situated on a bluff overlooking the Varenne, has a church,

Notre-Dame-sur-l'Eau, dating from the 11th century. In the middle ages

it was one of the chief strongholds in Normandy, and there still remain

several towers of its ramparts, and ruins of the keep of its castle

built in 1011, rebuilt in the 12th century by Henry II., king of

England, and dismantled at the end of the 16th century. The town is the

seat of a sub-prefect, and has a tribunal of first instance and a

communal college. Cloth is manufactured, and there are granite quarries

in the vicinity. Domfront is said to have grown up in the 6th century

round the oratory of the hermit St Front, and played an important part

in the wars against the English and the Religious Wars. In 1574 it was

occupied by the Protestant leader Gabriel de Montgomery, who after a

stubborn siege was forced to yield it to Jacques Goyon, count of

Matignon.

DOMICILE (Lat. _domicilium_, from _domus_, home), in law, a term which

may be defined generally as the place of a man's permanent abode; a

precise definition is a matter of acknowledged difficulty. Its use in

Roman jurisprudence was to fix the jurisdiction to which a person was

subject generally, not by reason of a particular circumstance, as the

place where a contract was made or where property is situate. Hence it

was admitted that a person might have as many domiciles as he had

residences possessing some degree of permanence. In the middle ages,

when a great diversity of laws had arisen, questions concerning personal

status, as the age of majority or the capacity to contract a given

marriage, came naturally to depend on the law to which the person was

subject by reason of the general jurisdiction over him; and questions

relating to the various items of his movable property grouped together,

as those of his testamentary capacity or of the succession on his

intestacy, had to be considered from a similarly personal point of view.

There resulted a general agreement that a man's legal character, so to

speak, should be determined by his domicile, and this introduced a

stricter notion of domicile, allowing each person to have but one. He

might be subjected without great inconvenience to more than one

jurisdiction, but not to more than one law. This is the position which

domicile now holds in English jurisprudence. It is the criterion of the

law applicable in a large class of cases, and it must be single for each

person; and English courts have continually to struggle with the

difficulty of selecting his domicile from among the various places in

any of which he may be said to reside.

Since the beginning of the 19th century most of the leading continental

states have unified their internal laws; and attachment to a province by

domicile having thus become an unnecessary consideration, they have

adopted political nationality as the criterion of the law to be applied

in most of the questions which used to depend on domicile. Thus as

between themselves they have greatly simplified the determination of

those questions, but a similar elimination of domicile is impossible in

what concerns British subjects, because the British empire continues to

include a great variety of laws, as those of England, Scotland, the

province of Quebec, the Cape Colony, &c. Within the British dominions

domicile is the only available criterion of the legal character of a

British subject, and all British courts continue to apply the same

criterion to British subjects outside those dominions and to foreigners,

so that, for example, the age of majority of a British subject or of a

Frenchman domiciled in Germany would be referred by a British court to

German law. Indeed so deeply is the principle of domicile seated in

British law that only legislative action could allow a British court to

substitute a new principle. And even a French, Italian or German court,

applying political nationality as its new criterion to the legal

character of a British subject, could obtain no definite result unless

it supplemented that criterion by the old one, domicile, in order to

connect the person in question with one of the legal systems existing in

the British dominions.

Again, so long as the change of the criterion has not become universal,

a new question is introduced by its having been made in some countries

only. Denmark being one of those European states which still adhere to

the principle of domicile, we will take it as an example in order not to

complicate the illustration by such differences of internal law as exist

in the British dominions. Suppose that a Danish court has to decide on

the age of majority of a Danish subject domiciled in France, Italy or

Germany. Its rule refers the question to the law of the domicile, and

the law of the domicile refers it back to the law of the political

nationality. What is to be done? This and all other questions relating

to the application of the principle of domicile, which has been only

summarily indicated, are treated under INTERNATIONAL LAW (Private). Here

we shall deal briefly with the determination of domicile itself.

The Roman jurists defined domicile to be the place "ubi quis larem

rerumque ac fortunarum summam constituit; unde rursus non sit

discessurus si nihil avocet: unde cum profectus est, peregrinari

videtur: quo si rediit peregrinari jam destitit." This makes that place

the domicile which may be described as the headquarters of the person

concerned; but a man's habits of life may point to no place, or may

point equally to two places, as his headquarters, and the connexion of

domicile with law requires that a man shall always have a domicile, and

never more than one. The former of these difficulties is met in the

manner described by Lord Westbury in _Udny_ v. _Udny_ (_Law Reports_, 1

House of Lords, Scottish Appeals). "It is," he said, "a settled

principle that no man shall be without a domicile, and to secure this

end the law attributes to every individual as soon as he is born the

domicile of his father, if the child be legitimate, and the domicile of

his mother, if the child be illegitimate. This is called the domicile of

origin, and is involuntary. It is the creation of the law, not of the

party. It may be extinguished by act of law, as for example by sentence

of death or exile for life, which destroys the _status civilis_ of the

criminal; but it cannot be destroyed by the will and act of the party.

Domicile of choice is the creation of the party. When a domicile of

choice is acquired, the domicile of origin is in abeyance, but is not

absolutely extinguished or obliterated. When a domicile of choice is

abandoned, the domicile of origin revives, a special intention to revert

to it not being necessary. A natural-born Englishman may domicile

himself in Holland, but if he breaks up his establishment there and

quits Holland, declaring that he will never return, it is absurd to

suppose that his Dutch domicile clings to him until he has set up his

tabernacle elsewhere." If to this we add that legitimate minors follow

the changes of the father's domicile and a married woman follows the

domicile of her husband, also that compulsory detention will not create

a domicile, the outlines of involuntary domicile will have been

sufficiently sketched.

For the establishment of a domicile of choice there must be both

_animus_ and _factum_, intention and fact. The fact need not be more

than arrival in the territory of the new domicile if there be the

necessary intention, while any number of years' continuance there will

not found a domicile if the necessary intention is absent. As the result

of the most recent English and Scottish cases it may be laid down that

the necessary intention is incompatible with the contemplation by the

person in question of any event on the occurrence of which his residence

in the territory in question would cease, and that if he has not formed

a fixed and settled purpose of settling in that territory, at least his

conduct and declarations must lead to the belief that he would have

declared such a purpose if the necessity of making an election between

that territory and his former one had arisen. The word territory,

meaning a country having a certain legal system, is used advisedly, for

neither the intention nor the fact need refer to a locality. It is

possible that a Scotsman or a foreigner may have clearly established a

domicile of choice in England, although it may be impossible to say

whether London, Brighton or a house in the country is his true or

principal residence. What is here laid down has been gradually attained.

In the older English cases an intention to return to the former domicile

was not excluded, if the event on which the return depended was highly

uncertain and regarded by the person in question as remote. Afterwards a

tendency towards the opposite extreme was manifested by requiring for a

domicile of choice the intention to associate oneself with the ideas and

habits of the new territory--_Quatenus in illo exuere patriam_, not in

the political sense, which it was never attempted to connect with change

of domicile, but in the social and legal sense. At present it is agreed

that the only intention to be considered is that of residence, but that,

if the intention to reside in the territory be proved to amount to what

has been above stated, a domicile will be acquired from which the legal

consequences will follow, even defeating intentions about them so

clearly expressed as, for instance, by making a will which by reason of

the change of domicile is invalid. The two most important cases are

_Douglas_ v. _Douglas_, 1871, L. R. 12 Equity 617, before

Vice-chancellor Wickens, and _Winans_ v. _Att. Gen._, 1904, Appeal Cases

287, before the House of Lords.

When the circumstances of a person's life point to two territories as

domiciles, the selection of the one which alone can fill that character

often leads to appeals even up to the highest court. The residence of a

man's wife and family as contrasted with his place of business, his

exercise of political or municipal functions, and any conduct which

tends to connect his children with a given country, as by their

education or the start given them in life, as well as other indications,

are often cited as important; but none of them are in themselves

decisive. The situation must be considered as a whole. When the question

is between the domicile of origin and an alleged one of choice, its

solution is rendered a little easier than it is when the question is

between two alleged domiciles of choice, the burden of proof lying on

the party which contends that the domicile of origin has been abandoned.

In the state of the law which has been described it will not be found

surprising that an act of parliament, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 121, recites that

by the operation of the law of domicile the expectation and belief of

British subjects dying abroad with regard to the distribution of their

property are often defeated, and enacts that when a convention to that

effect has been made with any foreign country, no British subject dying

in such country shall be deemed to have acquired a domicile therein,

unless he has been resident in such country for one year previous to

death and has made a declaration in writing of his intention to become

domiciled; and that British subjects so dying without having so resided

and made such declaration shall be deemed for all purposes of testate or

intestate succession as to movables to retain the domicile they

possessed at the time of going to reside in such foreign country.

Similar exemptions are conferred on the subjects of the foreign state

dying in Great Britain or Ireland. But the act does not apply to

foreigners who have obtained letters of naturalization in any part of

the British dominions. It has not been availed of, and is indeed an

anachronism, ignoring as it does the fact that domicile has no longer a

world-wide importance, owing to the substitution for it of political

nationality as a test of private law in so many important countries. The

United States of America is not one of those countries, but there the

importance of domicile suffers from the habit of referring questions of

capacity to the law of the place of contract instead of to any personal

law. (JNO. W.)

DOMINIC, SAINT (1170-1221), founder of the Dominican Order of Preaching

Friars, was born in 1170 at Calaroga in Old Castile. He spent ten or

twelve years in study, chiefly theological, at Palencia, and then, about

1195, he was ordained and became a canon in the cathedral chapter of

Osma, his native diocese. The bishop induced his canons to follow the

Rule of St Augustine and thus make themselves Augustinian Canons (q.v.);

and so Dominic became a canon regular and soon the prior or provost of

the cathedral community. The years from 1195 to 1203 have been filled up

with fabulous stories of missions to the Moors; but Dominic stayed at

Osma, preaching much in the cathedral, until 1203, when he accompanied

the bishop on an embassy in behalf of the king of Castile to "The

Marches." This has commonly been taken as Denmark, but more probably it

was the French or Italian Marches. When the embassy was over, the bishop

and Dominic repaired to Rome, and Innocent III. charged them to preach

among the Albigensian heretics in Languedoc. For ten years (1205-1215)

this mission in Languedoc was the work of Dominic's life.

The Albigenses (q.v.) have received much sympathy, as being a kind of

pre-Reformation Protestants; but it is now recognized that their tenets

were an extreme form of Manichaeism. They believed in the existence of

two gods, a good (whose son was Christ) and an evil (whose son was

Satan); matter is the creation of the evil principle, and therefore

essentially evil, and the greatest of all sins is sexual intercourse,

even in marriage; sinful also is the possession of material goods, and

the eating of flesh meat, and many other things. So great was the

abhorrence of matter that some even thought it an act of religion to

commit suicide by voluntary starvation, or to starve children to death

(see article "Neu-Manichaer" by Otto Zockler in ed. 3 of Herzog's

_Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie_ (1903); or c. iii. of

Paul Sabatier's _Life of St Francis_). Such tenets were destructive not

only of Catholicism but of Christianity of any kind and of civil society

itself; and for this reason so unecclesiastical a person as the emperor

Frederick II. tried to suppress the kindred sects in Italy. In 1208,

after the murder of a papal legate, Innocent III. called on the

Christian princes to suppress the Albigensian heresy by force of arms,

and for seven years the south of France was devastated by one of the

most bloodthirsty wars in history, the Albigenses being slaughtered by

thousands and their property confiscated wholesale.

During this time, it is the judgment of the most recent Protestant

writer on St Dominic that, though keeping on good terms with Simon de

Montfort, the leader, and praying for the success of the crusaders' arms

during the battle of Muret, "yet, so far as can be seen from the

sources, Dominic took no part in the crusade, but endeavoured to carry

his spiritual activity on the same lines as before. The oldest

trustworthy sources know nothing of his having exercised the office of

Inquisitor during the Albigensian war" (Grutzmacher). This verdict of a

fair-minded and highly competent Protestant church historian on the most

controverted point of Dominic's career is of great value. His method was

to travel over the country on foot and barefooted, in extreme poverty,

simplicity and austerity, preaching and instructing in highways and

villages and towns, and in the castles of the nobility, controverting

and discussing with the heretics. He used often to organize formal

disputations with Albigensian leaders, lasting a number of days. Many

times plots were laid against his life. Though in his ten years of

preaching a large number of converts were made, it has to be said that

the results were not such as had been hoped for, and after it all, and

after the crusade, the population still remained at heart Albigensian. A

sense of failure appears in Dominic's last sermon in Languedoc: "For

many years I have exhorted you in vain, with gentleness, preaching,

praying and weeping. But according to the proverb of my country, 'where

blessing can accomplish nothing, blows may avail.' We shall rouse

against you princes and prelates, who, alas, will arm nations and

kingdoms against this land ... and thus blows will avail where blessings

and gentleness have been powerless." The threat that seems to be

conveyed in these words, of trying to promote a new crusade, was never

carried out; the remaining years of Dominic's life were wholly given up

to the founding of his order.

The Order of Dominicans grew out of the little band of volunteers that

had joined Dominic in his mission among the Albigenses. He had become

possessed with the idea of addressing wider circles and of forming an

order whose vocation should be to preach and missionize throughout the

whole world. By 1214 the nucleus of such an institute was formed round

Dominic and was known as the "Holy Preaching." In 1215 the bishop of

Toulouse, Dominic's great friend, established them in a church and house

of the city, and Dominic went to Rome to obtain the permission of

Innocent III. to found his order of preachers. The course of events is

traced in the article DOMINICANS. After three years, in 1218, the full

permission he desired was given by Honorius III. These last years of his

life were spent in journeying backwards and forwards between Toulouse

and Rome, where his abode was at the basilica of Santa Sabina on the

Aventine, given to him by the pope; and then in extended journeys all

over Italy, and to Paris, and into Spain, establishing friaries and

organizing the order wherever he went. It propagated and spread with

extraordinary rapidity, so that by Dominic's death in 1221, only five or

six years after the first practical steps towards the execution of the

idea, there were over 500 friars and 60 friaries, divided into 8

provinces embracing the whole of western Europe. Thus Dominic was at his

death able to contemplate his great creation solidly established, and

well launched on its career to preach to the whole world.

It appears that at the end of his life Dominic had the idea of going

himself to preach to the heathen Kuman Tatars on the Dnieper and the

Volga. But this was not to be; he was worn out by the incessant toils

and fatigues and austerities of his laborious life, and he died at his

monastery at Bologna, on the 6th of August 1221. He was canonized in

1234 by Gregory IX., who, as Cardinal Ugolino, had been the great friend

and supporter both of Dominic and of Francis of Assisi. As St Dominic's

character and work do not receive the same general recognition as do St

Francis of Assisi's, it will be worth while to quote from the

appreciation by Prof. Grutzmacher of Heidelberg:--"It is certain that

Dominic was a noble personality of genuine and true piety.... Only by

the preaching of pure doctrine would he overcome heretics.... He was by

nature soft-hearted, so that he often shed tears through warm

sympathy.... In the purity of his intention and the earnestness with

which he strove to carry out his ideal, he was not inferior to Francis."

The chief sources for St Dominic's life are the account by Jordan of

Saxony, his successor as master-general of the order, and the evidence

of the witnesses at the Process of Canonization,--all in the

Bollandists' _Acta sanctorum_, Aug. 4. Probably the best modern Life

is that by Jean Guiraud, in the series _Les Saints_ (translated into

English by Katharine de Mattos, 1901); the bibliography contains a

useful list of the chief sources for the history of St Dominic and the

order, and of the best modern works thereon. See also the article

"Dominicus" in ed. 2 of Wetzer and Welte, _Kirchenlexicon_, and

Grutzmacher's excellent article "Dominikus," in ed. 3 of Herzog,

_Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie_, already referred to.

(E. C. B.)

DOMINICA, the largest of the five presidencies in the colony of the

Leeward Islands, British West Indies. It lies in 15 deg. 30' N. and 61

deg. 20' W., between the French islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe, at

a distance of about 25 m. from each, is 29 m. long, has a maximum

breadth of 16 m. and an area of 291 sq. m. A range of lofty rugged

mountains traverses the island from N. to S., broken in the centre by a

narrow plain drained by the rivers Layou and Pagoua, flowing W. and E.

respectively. The highest point is Morne Diablotin (5314 ft.), situated

in the northern half of the range. Signs of volcanic activity abound in

the shape of solfataras, subterranean vapours and hot springs; while in

the south is the greatest natural curiosity, the renowned Boiling Lake.

It lies on the mountain side, 2300 ft. above the sea, its banks are

steep and its depth unknown, being more than 300 ft. at a short distance

from the margin. Its seething waters are often forced 3 ft. above the

normal level by the pressure of the escaping gases; and the fumes rising

from the lake are occasionally poisonous. The island is botanically

remarkable for its great number of peculiar species, offering in this

respect a marked contrast to the poverty of the adjacent islands. The

hills are covered with valuable timber, while coffee, limes, oranges,

india-rubber trees, spices and all tropical fruits grow luxuriantly in

the rich brown mould of the lowlands. There are some thirty streams of

considerable size, besides numerous mountain torrents, and this

abundance of water renders the island very fertile. The fisheries are

productive, and honey and wax are furnished by wild bees, originally

introduced from Europe. The temperature varies from 78 deg. to 86 deg.

F. in the hot season from August to October, and from 72 deg. to 84 deg.

in the cooler months; the rainfall varies in different parts from 50 to

162 in. per annum, but the porous soil soon absorbs the rain, rendering

the atmosphere dry and invigorating.

The manufactures include sugar, lime-juice and essential oils; the

exports are coffee, cocoa, sugar, limes and lime-juice, essential oils

and fruit of all kinds. The inhabitants in 1901 numbered 28,894. The

majority are negroes; the whites are of French and British descent.

There are also a few Caribs, the remnant of the aboriginal population. A

French _patois_ is the language of the peasantry, but English is

generally understood. The capital, Roseau (5764), is a fortified town

and a port; Portsmouth, the only other town, possesses the better

harbour in Prince Rupert's Bay on the north-west. In religion the Roman

Catholics predominate, and a bishop resides at Roseau, but there is no

established church. Education is free and compulsory, and the Cambridge

local examinations are held annually.

Dominica was so named on its discovery by Columbus in 1493, in

commemoration of the date, Sunday (_Dies Dominica_) the 3rd of November.

Dominica was included in the grant of various islands in the Caribbean

Sea made in 1627 by Charles I. to the earl of Carlisle, but the first

European settlers (1632) were French. They brought with them negro

slaves and lived on terms of friendship with the Caribs, who were then

a numerous body. In 1660 a treaty appears to have been made between the

French, British and the natives assigning St Vincent and Dominica to the

Caribs, but shortly afterwards attempts were made by the British to gain

a foothold in the island. These attempts failed, and in 1748 it was once

more agreed by France and Great Britain that Dominica should be left in

the undisturbed possession of the natives. Nevertheless the French

settlers increased, and the island came under the rule of a French

governor. It was captured by the British in 1761 and formally ceded by

France at the peace of Paris, 1763, French settlers being secured in

their estates. In 1778 a French force from Martinique seized the island.

Rodney's victory over De Grasse in the neighbouring sea in 1782 was

followed by the restoration of the island to Britain in 1783; in the

interval the trade of Dominica had been ruined. In 1795 a force from

Guadeloupe made an unsuccessful descent on the island, and in 1805 the

French general La Grange, at the head of 4000 troops, took Roseau and

pillaged the island--an event now remembered as the most memorable in

its history. The French were, however, unable to make good their hold,

and Dominica has remained since undisturbed in British possession. Its

later history presents few features not common to the other British West

Indian islands.

Since 1872 Dominica has formed part of the colony of the Leeward

Islands, but local affairs are in the hands of an administrator, aided

by an executive council of ten members. In 1898 the local legislature,

in consideration of pecuniary assistance from Great Britain, passed an

act abrogating the semi-elective constitution and providing for a

legislative council of twelve nominated members, six of whom sit _ex

officio_.

DOMINICANS, otherwise called Friars Preachers, and in England Black

Friars, from the black mantle worn over a white habit, an order of

friars founded by St Dominic (q.v.). Their first house was in Toulouse,

where the bishop established them at the church of St Romain, 1215.

Dominic at once went to Rome to obtain permission to found an order of

preachers whose sphere of activity should be the whole world, but

Innocent III. said they must adopt one of the existing rules. Dominic

returned to Toulouse and it was resolved to take the Rule of St

Augustine, Dominic himself having been an Augustinian canon at Osma (see

AUGUSTINIAN CANONS). Dominic went again to Rome, and during the year

1216 he obtained from Honorius III. a series of confirmations of the

community at Toulouse as a congregation of Canons Regular of St

Augustine with a special mission to preach. Early in 1218 an encyclical

bull was issued to the bishops of the whole Catholic world recommending

to them the "Order of Friars Preachers," followed in 1221 by another

ordering them to give to the friars faculties to preach and hear

confessions in their dioceses. Already in 1217 Dominic had scattered the

little band of seventeen over the world--to Paris, into Spain, and one

he took with himself to Rome. Within a few months there were forty

friars in Rome, at Santa Sabina on the Aventine, and thirty in Paris;

and before Dominic's death in 1221 friaries had been established at

Lyons, Limoges, Reims, Metz, Poitiers and Orleans; at Bologna, Milan,

Florence, Verona, Piacenza and Venice; at Madrid, Palencia, Barcelona

and Seville; at Friesach in Carinthia; at Cracow and Prague; and friars

were on their way to Hungary and England.

The order took definite shape at the two general chapters held at

Bologna in 1220 and 1221. At first it had been but a congregation of

canons regular and had worn the canons' black cassock with white linen

rochet. But now a white woollen habit with a black cloak or mantle was

assumed. The Rule of St Augustine was supplemented by a body of

regulations, adopted mostly from those of the Premonstratensian canons.

At the head of the order was the master-general, elected for life until

recent times, when the term of office was limited to six and then to

twelve years; he enjoys supreme power over the entire order, both houses

and individuals, all of whom are directly subject to him. He dwells in

Rome and is assisted by a council. The order is divided into provinces

and over each is a provincial, elected for four years. Each friary has

its prior, elected by the community every four years. The friars belong

not to the house or province in which they make their profession, but to

the order; and it rests with the master-general to assign to each his

place of residence. The manner of life was very austere--midnight

office, perpetual abstinence from meat, frequent disciplines, prolonged

fasts and silence. At St Dominic's suggestion, and under his strong

pressure, but not without considerable opposition, the general chapter

determined that the poverty practised in the order should be not merely

individual, as in the monastic orders, but corporate, as among the

Franciscans; so that the order should have no possessions, except the

monastic buildings and churches, no property, no fixed income, but

should live on charity and by begging. Thus, doubtless in imitation of

the Franciscans, the Dominicans became a mendicant order.

The extraordinarily rapid propagation of the institute suffered no

diminution through the founder's death; this was mainly due to the fact

that his four immediate successors in the generalate were men of

conspicuous ability and high character. In a few years the Dominicans

penetrated into Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Prussia and Poland, preaching

and missionizing in the still pagan districts of these countries; and

soon they made their way to Greece and Palestine and thence to central

Asia. St Hyacinth, a Pole received by St Dominic, during missionary

journeys extending over thirty-five years travelled over the north and

east of Europe and into Tatary, Tibet and northern China. In 1252 the

pope addressed a letter to the Dominicans who were preaching "among the

Saracens, Greeks, Bulgarians, Kumans, Syrians, Goths, Jacobites,

Armenians, Jews, Tatars, Hungarians." From the 14th century until the

middle of the 17th the Dominicans had numerous missions in Persia, India

and China, and in the northern parts of Africa. They followed the

Spanish and Portuguese explorers and conquerors both to the East and to

the West, converting, protecting and civilizing the aborigines. On these

missionary enterprises great numbers of Dominicans laid down their life

for the Gospel.

Another conspicuous field of work of the Dominicans lay in the

universities. It had been St Dominic's policy to aim at founding houses

first of all in the great university towns--at Paris, Bologna, Palencia,

Oxford. This policy was adhered to, and the Dominicans soon became a

power in the universities, occupying chairs in those just named and in

Padua, Cologne, Vienna, Prague and Salamanca. The scholastic doctors

Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas were the leaders in this side of

Dominican activity, and the order's influence on the course of medieval

theological development was exercised mainly by these doctors and by the

Dominican school of theology, which to this day has maintained the

principles and methods elaborated by St Thomas.

The Dominican name is in an especial way associated with the

Inquisition, the office of Inquisitor in all countries, including Spain,

having usually been held by Dominicans. The vicissitudes of the order

have been much like those of other orders--periods of relaxation being

followed by periods of revival and reform; but there were not any

reforms of the same historical importance as in most other orders, the

policy having been to keep all such movements strictly within the

organization of the order. In 1425 Martin V. relaxed for some houses the

law of corporate poverty, allowing them to hold property, and to have

fixed sources of income; and fifty years later Sixtus IV. extended this

mitigation to the entire order, which thereby ceased to be mendicant.

This change caused no troubles, as among the Franciscans, for it was

felt that it did not touch St Dominic's fundamental idea.

The Friars Preachers came to England and were established at Oxford in

1221, and by the end of the century fifty friaries were founded all over

England, usually in the towns, and several in Ireland and Scotland. In

London they were first on the site of Lincoln's Inn, but in 1275 they

migrated to that now occupied by Printing-house Square, and their name

survives in Blackfriars Bridge. The only nunnery was at Dartford. At the

Dissolution there were fifty-seven friaries (see lists in F. A.

Gasquet's _English Monastic Life_, _Catholic Dictionary_ and C. F.

Palmer's _Life of Cardinal Howard_, where historical notes are added).

In Mary's reign some of the scattered friars were brought together and

established in Smithfield, and the remnant of the nuns were restored to

Dartford. In 1559 these houses were suppressed and the nuns and two

friars expatriated, and for a hundred years there was no English

Dominican community. But throughout the reigns of Elizabeth and the

early Stuarts there were usually some Dominicans, either Englishmen

professed in foreign monasteries or foreigners, labouring on the English

mission or attached to the foreign embassies. In 1658 Friar Thomas

Howard (afterwards Cardinal) succeeded in establishing at Bornhem near

Antwerp a house for the English friars. From that time there has always

been an organized body of English Dominicans, again and again reduced

almost to extinction, but ever surviving; it now has half a dozen

thriving friaries. The Irish province also survived the days of

persecution and possesses a dozen friaries. In 1840 Lacordaire restored

the French province. In 1900 there were 4350 Dominicans, including lay

brothers, and 300 friaries, scattered all over the world. Missionary

work still holds a prominent place in Dominican life; there are missions

in Annam, Tongking and China, and in Mesopotamia, Mosul and Kurdistan.

They have also a remarkable school for Biblical studies and research at

Jerusalem, and the theological faculty in the Roman Catholic university

at Fribourg in Switzerland is in their hands. There have been four

Dominican popes: Innocent V. (+ 1276), Benedict XI. (+ 1304), Pius V. (+

1572), Benedict XIII. (+ 1730).

The friars form the "First Order"; the nuns, or Dominicanesses, the

"Second Order." The latter may claim to have chronological precedence

over the friars, for the first nunnery was established by St Dominic in

1206 at Prouille in the diocese of Toulouse, as a refuge for women

converted from the Albigensian heresy. The second convent was at San

Sisto in Rome, also founded by Dominic himself. From that time the

institute spread widely. The rule resembled that of the friars, except

that the nuns were to be strictly enclosed and purely contemplative; in

course of time, however, they undertook educational work. In 1909 there

were nearly 100 nunneries of the Second Order, with some 1500 nuns. They

have schools and orphanages in South Africa, especially in the

Transvaal.

A considerable number of other convents for women follow the Rule of the

"Third Order." This rule was not written until the 15th century, and it

is controverted whether, and in what sense, it can be held that the

"Third Order" really goes back to St Dominic, or whether it grew up in

imitation of the Franciscan Tertiaries. Besides the conventual

Tertiaries, there are confraternities of lay men and women who strive to

carry out this rule while living their family life in the world (see

TERTIARIES). St Catharine of Siena was a Dominican Tertiary.

See the authorities cited in the article DOMINIC, SAINT; also Helyot,

_Hist. des ordres religieux_ (1714), iii. cc. 24-29, and Max

Heimbucher, _Orden u. Kongregationen_ (1896), SS 86-91; and C. F.

Palmer, _Life of Cardinal Howard_ (1867), which gives a special

account of the English Dominican province. (E. C. B.)

DOMINIS, MARCO ANTONIO DE (1560-1624), Italian theologian and natural

philosopher, was born of a noble Venetian family in 1560 in the island

of Arbe, off the coast of Dalmatia. He was educated by the Jesuits in

their colleges at Loreto and Padua, and is supposed by some to have

joined their order; the more usual opinion, however, is that he was

dissuaded from doing so by Cardinal Aldobrandini. For some time he was

employed as a teacher at Verona, as professor of mathematics at Padua,

and professor of rhetoric and philosophy at Brescia. In 1596 he was

appointed to the bishopric of Segnia (Zengg) in Dalmatia, and two years

later was raised to the archbishopric of Spalato and primacy of Dalmatia

and Croatia. His endeavours to reform the Church soon brought him into

conflict with his suffragans; and the interference of the papal court

with his rights as metropolitan, an attitude intensified by the quarrel

between the papacy and Venice, made his position intolerable. This, at

any rate, is the account given in his own apology--the _Consilium

profectionis_--in which he also states that it was these troubles that

led him to those researches into ecclesiastical law, church history and

dogmatic theology, which, while confirming him in his love for the ideal

of "the true Catholic Church," revealed to him how far the papal system

was from approximating to it. After a visit to Rome, when he in vain

attempted to gain the ear of Pope Paul V., he resigned his see in

September 1616, wrote at Venice his _Consilium profectionis_, and then

went by way of Switzerland, Heidelberg and Rotterdam to England, where

he arrived in December. He was welcomed by the king and the Anglican

clergy with great respect, was received into the Church of England in St

Paul's cathedral, and was appointed master of the Savoy (1618) and dean

of Windsor (1619); he subsequently presented himself to the living of

West Ilsley, Berkshire. Contemporary writers give no pleasant account of

him, describing him as fat, irascible, pretentious and very avaricious;

but his ability was undoubted, and in the theological controversies of

the time he soon took a foremost place. His published attacks on the

papacy succeeded each other in rapid succession: the _Papatus Romanus_,

issued anonymously (London, 1617; Frankfort, 1618), the _Scogli del

naufragio Christiano_, written in Switzerland (London, (?) 1618), of

which English, French and German translations also appeared, and a

_Sermon preached in Italian, &c._, before the king. But his principal

work was the _De republica ecclesiastica_, of which the first

part--after revision by Anglican theologians--was published under royal

patronage in London (1617), in which he set forth with a great display

of erudition his theory of the church. In the main it is an elaborate

treatise on the historic organization of the church, its principal note

being its insistence on the divine prerogatives of the Catholic

episcopate as against the encroachments of the papal monarchy. In 1619

Dominis published in London, with a dedication to James I., Paolo

Sarpi's _Historia del Concilio Tridentino_, the MS. of which he had

brought with him from Venice. It is characteristic of the man that he

refused to hand over to Sarpi a penny of the money present given to him

by the king as a reward for this work.

Three years later the ex-archbishop was back again in Rome, doing

penance for his heresies in St Peter's with a cord round his neck. The

reasons for this sudden revolution in his opinions, which caused grave

scandal in England, have been much debated; it is probably no libel on

his memory, however, to say that they were connected with the hopes

raised by the elevation of his kinsman, Alessandro Ludovisi, to the

papal throne as Gregory XV. (1621). It is said that he was enticed back

to Rome by the promise of pardon and rich preferment. If so, he was

doomed to bitter disappointment. He had barely time to publish at Rome

(1623) his _Sui reditus ex Angliae consilium_, an abject repudiation of

his anti-papal works as written "non ex cordis sinceritate, non ex bona

conscientia, non ex fide," when Gregory died (July 1623). During the

interregnum that followed, the proceedings of the Inquisition against

the archbishop were revived, and they continued under Urban VIII. Before

they were concluded, however, Dominis died in prison, on the 8th of

September 1624. Even this did not end his trial, and on the 20th of

December judgment was pronounced over his corpse in the church of Santa

Maria sopra Minerva. By order of the Inquisition his body was taken from

the coffin, dragged through the streets of Rome, and publicly burnt in

the Campo di Fiore. By a strange irony of fate the publication of his

_Reditus consilium_ was subsequently forbidden in Venice because of its

uncompromising advocacy of the supremacy of the pope over the temporal

powers. As a theologian and an ecclesiastic Dominis was thoroughly

discredited; as a man of science he was more happy. He was the first to

put forward a true theory of the rainbow, in his _De radiis visus et

lucis in vitris perspectivis et iride_ (Venice, 1611).

See the article by Canon G. G. Perry in the Dict. _Nat. Biog._, and

that by Benrath in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_ (ed. 1898), iv. p.

781, where a full bibliography is given. Also H. Newland, _Life and

Contemporaneous Church History of Antonio de Dominis_ (Oxford, 1859).

DOMINOES, a game unknown until the 18th century, and probably invented

in Italy, played with twenty-eight oblong pieces, or dominoes, known

also as _cards_ or _stones_, having ivory faces backed with ebony; from

this ebony backing, as resembling the cloak (usually black) called a

domino (see MASK), the name is said to be derived. Cardboard dominoes to

be held in the hand are also in use. The face of each card is divided

into two squares by a black line, and in each square half the value of

the card is indicated by its being either a blank or marked with one or

more black pips, generally up to six, but some sets run as high as

double-nine. There are various ways of playing dominoes described below.

_The Block and Draw Games._--The dominoes are shuffled face downwards

on the table. The lead is usually decided by drawing for the highest

card, but it is sometimes held that any doublet takes precedence. The

cards are then reshuffled, and each player draws at random the number

of cards required for the particular form of the game, usually seven.

The cards left behind are called the _stock_. To play a card is known

technically as to _pose_. The leader poses first, generally playing

his highest domino, since at the end the player loses according to the

number of pips in the cards he has left in his hand. By some rules, a

player after playing a double may play another card which matches it:

e.g. if he plays double-six he may play another card which has a six

at one end. The second player has to match the leader's pose by

putting one of his cards in juxtaposition at one end, i.e. if the

leader plays four-five, the second player has to play a card which

contains either a four or a five, the five being applied to the five,

or the four to the four. Doublets are placed _a cheval_ (_crosswise_).

If a player cannot match, he says "go," and his opponent plays, unless

the Draw game--the usual game--is being played, in which case the

player who cannot match draws from the stock (two cards must always be

left in the stock) till he takes a card that matches. If a player

succeeds in posing all his cards, he calls "Domino!" and wins the

hand, scoring as many points as there are pips on the cards still held

by his opponent. If neither player can match, that player wins who has

the fewest pips left in his hand, and he scores as many points as are

left in the two hands combined (sometimes only the excess held by his

opponent); but when a player has called "Go!" his adversary must match

if he can, in which case the other player may be able to match in

turn. A game is generally 100 points.

_All Fives_ (or _Muggins_).--Each player takes five cards. If the

leader poses either double-five, six-four, five-blank, or three-two,

he scores the number of pips that are on the card. If in the course of

play a player can play such a card as makes the sum of the end pips,

5, 10, 15 or 20, he scores that number; e.g. if to two-four he can

play double-four (_a cheval_) he scores 10; if to six-one he plays

six-four he scores 5. He must pose if he can match; if he cannot, he

draws till he can. Scores are called and taken immediately. At the

point of domino, the winner scores in points the multiple of five

which is nearest to the number of pips in his adversary's hand: e.g.

he scores 25 if his adversary has 27 pips, 30 if he has 28. If neither

hand can match, the lowest number of pips wins, and the score is taken

as before, without addition or subtraction, according to the

adversary's pips.

_All Threes_ is played in the same manner as Muggins, save that three

or some multiple of three are aimed at.

_Threes-and-Fives_ is similar, but only one point is scored for each

five or three made at the two ends, though they can be scored in

combination. Thus A plays six-five; B six-one; B scores 2 points for

5-1 (two threes). A plays one-five; B double five; B now scores 8

more, 5 for five threes and 3 for three fives.

_Domino-Whist_ is played by four players. Partners are drawn for as at

Whist, the player drawing the highest card leading. Each player takes

seven cards. There are no tricks, trumps or honours. The cards are

played as in ordinary dominoes, a hand being finished when one of the

players plays his last card, or when both ends are blocked. Pips are

then counted, and the holder or holders of the highest number score to

their debit the aggregate number of points. The side that is first

debited with 100 points loses the game. Strength in a _suit_ is

indicated by the lead; _i.e._ a lead of double-blank or double-six

implies strength in blanks or sixes respectively.

_Matador_ (from the Spanish word meaning "killer," i.e. of the bull in

a bull-fight). This is a favourite and perhaps the most scientific

form of the game. It is played on a different principle from the

preceding variations, the object being not to match the end number,

but to pose such a number, as, added to the end, will make seven;

_e.g._ to a five a two must be played, to a three a four, &c. Seven

dominoes are drawn and the highest double begins. When a player cannot

make a seven on either end he must draw from the stock until he

secures a card that will enable him to make seven, two cards remaining

in the stock. As Matador is played with dominoes no higher than six, a

blank means the blocking of that end. In this case no further play can

take place at that end excepting by posing a _matador_, which may be

played at any time. There are four matadors, the 6-1, 5-2, 4-3 and

double-blank. It is often better to draw one or more fresh cards than

to play one's last matador, as it may save the game at a critical

juncture. In posing a double counts as a single number only, but in

scoring the full number of pips is counted. When the game has been

definitely blocked the player whose pips aggregate the lower number

scores the number of the combined hands (sometimes only the excess in

his opponent's hand), the game being usually 100. Matador can be

played by three persons, in which case the two having the lowest

scores usually combine against the threatening winner; and also by

four, either each for himself or two on a side.

Other varieties of the game not often played are the Bergen game,

Sevastopol and Domino Loo.

See _Card and Table Games_ by Hoffmann (London, G. Routledge & Sons).

DOMINUS (from an Indo-European root _dam-_, cf. Gr. [Greek: daman], to

subdue, and Eng. "tame"), the Latin word for master or owner. As a title

of sovereignty the term under the republic at Rome had all the

associations of the Greek [Greek: tyrannos]; refused during the early

principate, it finally became an official title of the Roman emperors

under Diocletian. _Dominus_, the French equivalent being _sieur_, was

the Latin title of the feudal (superior and mesne) lords, and also an

ecclesiastical and academical title. The ecclesiastical title was

rendered in English "sir," which was a common prefix before the

Reformation for parsons, as in "Sir Hugh Evans" in Shakespeare's _Merry

Wives of Windsor_. The academical use was for a bachelor of arts, and so

is still used at Cambridge and other universities. The shortened form

"dom" is used as a prefix of honour for ecclesiastics of the Roman

Church, and especially for members of the Benedictine and other

religious orders. The same form is also a title of honour in Portugal,

as formerly in Brazil, used by members of the blood royal and others on

whom it has been conferred by the sovereign. The Spanish form "don" is

also a title, formerly applicable only to the nobility, and now one of

courtesy and respect applied to any member of the better classes. The

feminine form "donna" is similarly applied to a lady. The English

colloquial use of "don" for a fellow or tutor of a college at a

university is derived either from an application of the Spanish title to

one having authority or position, or from the academical use of

_dominus_. The earliest use of the word in this sense appears, according

to the _New English Dictionary_, in South's _Sermons_ (1660). An English

corruption "dan" was in early use as a title of respect, equivalent to

"master." The particular literary application to poets is due to

Spenser's use of "Dan Chaucer, well of English undefyled" (_Faery

Queen_, IV. ii. 32).

DOMITIAN (TITUS FLAVIUS DOMITIANUS), Roman emperor A.D. 81-96, the

second son of Titus Flavius Vespasianus and Flavia Domitilla, twelfth of

the Caesars, and third of the Flavian dynasty, was born at Rome on the

24th of October A.D. 51. When Vespasian was proclaimed emperor at

Alexandria, Domitian escaped with difficulty from the temple of the

Capitol, which had been set on fire by the Vitellians, and remained in

hiding till his father's party proved victorious. After the fall of

Vitellius he was saluted as Caesar, or prince imperial, by the troops,

obtained the city praetorship, and was entrusted with the administration

of Italy till his father's return from the East. But although in his

father's lifetime he several times filled the office of consul, and

after his death was nominally the partner in the empire with his brother

Titus, he never took any part in public business, but lived in great

retirement, devoting himself to a life of pleasure and of literary

pursuits till he succeeded to the throne. The death of Titus, if not

hastened by foul means, was at least eagerly welcomed by his brother.

Domitian's succession (on the 13th of September 81) was unquestioned,

and it would seem that he had intended, so far as his weak volition and

mean abilities would allow, to govern well. Like Augustus, he attempted

a reformation of morals and religion. As chief pontiff he inquired

rigorously into the character of the vestal virgins, three of whom were

buried alive; he enforced the laws against adultery, mutilation, and the

grosser forms of immorality, and forbade the public acting of mimes. He

erected many temples and public buildings (amongst them the Odeum, a

kind of theatre for musical performances) and restored the temple of the

Capitol. He passed many sumptuary laws, and issued an edict forbidding

the over-cultivation of vines to the neglect of corn-growing. Finally,

he took a personal share in the administration of justice at Rome,

checked the activity of the informers (_delatores_), and exercised a

jealous supervision over the governors of provinces. Such public virtues

at first counterbalanced his private vices in the eyes of the people.

Domitian was the first emperor who arrogated divine honours in his

lifetime, and caused himself to be styled _Our Lord and God_ in public

documents. Doubtless in the poems of writers like Martial this

deification was nothing but fulsome flattery, but in the case of the

provincials it was a sincere tribute to the impersonation of the Roman

Empire, as the administrator of good government and the peacemaker of

the world. Even when Rome and Italy smarted beneath his proscriptions

and extortions, the provinces were undisturbed.

Though he took the title of imperator more than twenty times, and

enjoyed at least one triumph, Domitian's military achievements were

insignificant. He defeated the Chatti, annexed the district of the

Taunus, and established the _Limes_ as a line of defence; but he

suffered defeats at the hands of the Quadi, Sarmatae and Marcomanni; in

Dacia he received a severe check, and was obliged to purchase peace (90)

from Decebalus by the payment of a large sum of money and by

guaranteeing a yearly tribute--the first instance in Roman history. His

jealousy was provoked by the successes of Agricola in Britain, who was

recalled to Rome (85) in the midst of his conquests, condemned to

retirement, and perhaps removed by poison. The revolt of Antonius

Saturninus, the commander of the Roman forces in Upper Germany (88 or

89), marks the turning-point in his reign (on the date see H. Schiller,

_Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit_, i. pt. 2, p. 524, note 2). It was

speedily crushed; but from that moment Domitian's character changed. He

got rid of all whom he disliked on the charge of having taken part in

the conspiracy, and no man of eminence was safe against him. He was in

constant fear of assassination and distrusted all around him. During the

last three years of his life his behaviour was that of a madman. He

sentenced to death his own cousin and nephew by marriage, Flavius

Clemens, whose wife he banished for her supposed leaning towards Judaism

(Christianity). A conspiracy among his own freedmen--set on foot, it is

said, by his wife Domitia Longina, who knew her own life to be

threatened--cut short his career. He was stabbed in his bedroom by a

freedman of Clemens named Stephanus on the 18th of September 96.

AUTHORITIES. _Ancient._--Tacitus, _Histories_, iii. iv.; Suetonius,

_Domitian_; Dio Cassius lxvi., lxvii.; Tacitus, _Agricola_, 18-22.

Modern accounts by A. Imhof, _T. Flavius Domitianus_ (Halle, 1857),

which, while not claiming any special originality, is based on a

conscientious study of authorities; A. Halberstadt, _De imperatoris

Domitiani moribus et rebus_ (Amsterdam, 1877), an attempt to

rehabilitate Domitian; S. Gsell, _Essai sur le regne de l'empereur

Domitien_ (1894), very complete in every respect; H. Schiller (as

above), pp. 520-538; C. Merivale, _Hist. of the Romans under the

Empire_, ch. 61, 62. For Domitian's attitude towards Christianity see

V. Schultze in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie fur protestantische

Theologie_, iv. (1898); Sir W. M. Ramsay, _The Church in the Roman

Empire_ (1903); E. G. Hardy, _Christianity and the Roman Government_

(1894); J. B. Bury, Appendix 8 to vol. ii. of his edition of Gibbon.

DOMREMY-LA-PUCELLE, a village of eastern France, in the department of

Vosges, on the left bank of the Meuse, 7 m. N. of Neufchateau by road.

Pop. (1906) 233. Domremy was the birthplace of Joan of Arc, and the

cottage in which she was born still stands. Above the door are the arms

of France and of Joan of Arc and an inscription of 1481 reading "Vive

labeur; vive le roi Louys." There are several monuments to the heroine,

and a modern basilica has been erected in her honour on a neighbouring

hill, where she is said to have heard the voices in obedience to which

she took up the sword. The story of the heroine is annually celebrated

by a play in which the villagers take part.

DON (anc. _Tanais_), a river of European Russia, called _Tuna_ or _Duna_

by the Tatars, rising in Lake Ivan (580 ft. above sea-level) in the

government of Tula, where it has communication with the Volga by means

of the Yepifan Canal, which links it with the Upa, a tributary of the

Oka, which itself enters the Volga. The Don, after curving east through

the government of Ryazan, flows generally south through the governments

of Tambov, Orel, Voronezh and the Don Cossacks territory, describing in

the last-named a sweeping loop to the east, in the course of which it

approaches within 48 m. of the Volga in 49 deg. N. In the middle of the

Don Cossacks territory it turns definitely south-west, and finally

enters the north-east extremity of the Sea of Azov, forming a delta 130

sq. m. in extent. Its total length is 1325 m., and its drainage area is

calculated at 166,000 sq. m. The average fall of the river is about

5-1/4 in. to the mile. In its upper course, which may be regarded as

extending to the confluence of the Voronezh in 51 deg. 40', the Don

flows for the most part through a low-lying, fertile country, though in

the government of Ryazan its banks are rocky and steep, and in some

places even precipitous. In the middle division, or from the mouth of

the Voronezh to the point where it makes its nearest approach to the

Volga, the stream cuts its way for the most part through Cretaceous

rocks, which in many places rise on either side in steep and elevated

banks, and at intervals encroach on the river-bed. A short distance

below the town of Rostov it breaks up into several channels, of which

the largest and most southern retains the name of the river. Before it

receives the Voronezh the Don has a breadth of 500 to 700, or even in a

few places 1000 ft., while its depth varies from 4 to 20 ft.; by the

time it reaches its most eastern point the depth has increased to 8-50

ft., and the ordinary breadth to 700-1000 ft., with an occasional

maximum of 1400 ft.; in the lowest division the depth is frequently 70

ft., and the breadth in many places 1870 ft. Generally speaking, the

right bank is high and the left flat and low. Shallow reaches are not

uncommon, and there are at least seven considerable shoals in the

south-western part of the course; partly owing to this cause, and partly

to the scarcity of ship-timber in the Voronezh government, the Don,

although navigable as far up as Voronezh, does not attain any great

importance as a means of communication till it reaches Kachalinskaya in

the vicinity of the Volga. From that point, or rather from Kalach, where

the railway (built in 1862) from the Volga has its western terminus, the

traffic is very extensive. Of the tributaries of the river, the

Voronezh, the Khoper, the Medvyeditsa and the Donets are navigable--the

Donets having a course of 680 m., and during high water affording access

to the government of Kharkov. The Manych, another large affluent on the

left, marks the ancient line of water connexion between the Sea of Azov

and the Caspian Sea. The lower section of the Don is subject to two

annual floods, of which the earlier, known as the "cold water," is

caused by the melting of the snow in the country of the Don Cossacks,

and the later, or the "warm water," is due to the same process taking

place in the region drained by the upper parts of the stream. About the

beginning of June the river begins to subside with great rapidity; in

August the water is very low and navigation almost ceases; but

occasionally after the September rains the traffic with small craft is

again practicable. Since the middle of the 18th century there have been

five floods of extraordinary magnitude,--namely, in 1748, 1786, 1805,

1820 and 1845. The river is usually closed by ice from November or

December to March or April, and at rare intervals it freezes in October.

At Aksai, in the delta, it remains open on the average for 250 days in

the year, at the mouth of the Medvyeditsa for 239, and at Novo-Cherkask,

on another arm of the delta, for 246. This river supports a considerable

fishing population, who despatch salt fish and caviare all over Russia.

Salmon and herrings are taken in large numbers. (P. A. K.; J. T. BE.)

DON, a river in the south of Aberdeenshire, Scotland, rising in

peat-moss to the east of Glen Avon on the borders of Banffshire, at a

height of nearly 2000 ft. above the sea. It follows a generally easterly

course, roughly parallel with that of the Dee, and a few miles to the

south of it, falling into the North Sea close to Old Aberdeen, after a

run of 82 m. At the mouth the two rivers are only 2-1/3 m. apart. Like

its greater neighbour, the Don is an excellent salmon stream. On the

left its chief affluents are the Ernan, Nochty, Bucket and Urie; on the

right, the Conrie, Carvie, Deskry and Strow. The principal places of

interest on its banks are Strathdon, Towie, Kildrummy, Alford, Keig,

Monymusk, Inverurie, Kintore and Dyce.

DONAGHADEE, a market town of Co. Down, Ireland, in the north

parliamentary division, near the south of Belfast Lough, on the Irish

Channel, 25 m. E. by N. of Belfast by a branch of the Belfast and Co.

Down railway. Pop. (1901) 2073. It is the nearest port in Ireland to

Great Britain, being 21-1/2 m. S.W. of Portpatrick in Wigtownshire.

Telegraph and telephone cables join these ports, but a regular passenger

route does not exist owing to the unsuitability of Portpatrick.

Donaghadee harbour admits vessels up to 200 tons. On the north-east

side of the town there is a rath or encampment 70 ft. high, in which a

powder magazine is erected. The parish church dates from 1626. There are

two holy wells in the town. The town is frequented as a seaside

watering-place in the summer months.

DONALDSON, SIR JAMES (1831- ), Scottish classical scholar, educational

and theological writer, was born at Aberdeen on the 26th of April 1831.

He was educated at Aberdeen University and New College, London. In 1854

he was appointed rector of the Stirling high school, in 1866 rector of

that of Edinburgh, in 1881 professor of humanity in the university of

Aberdeen, and in 1890 principal of the university of St Andrews, by the

Universities (Scotland) Act. His chief works are: _Modern Greek Grammar_

(1853); _Lyra Graeca_ (1854), specimens of Greek lyric poetry from

Callinus to Soutsos; _A Critical History of Christian Literature and

Doctrine from the Death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council_ (i.-iii.,

1864-1866; new ed. of i. as _The Apostolical Fathers_, 1874), a book

unique of its kind in England at the time of its appearance and one

which adds materially to the knowledge of Christian antiquities as

deduced from the apostolic fathers; _Lectures on the History of

Education in Prussia and England_ (1874); _The Westminster Confession of

Faith and the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England_ (1905);

_Woman, her position and influence in ancient Greece and Rome_ (1907).

He was knighted in 1907.

DONALDSON, JOHN WILLIAM (1811-1861), English philologist and biblical

critic, was born in London on the 7th of June 1811. He was educated at

University College, London, and Trinity College, Cambridge, of which

society he subsequently became fellow. In 1841 he was elected headmaster

of King Edward's school, Bury St Edmunds. In 1855 he resigned his post

and returned to Cambridge, where his time was divided between literary

work and private tuition. He died on the 10th of February 1861. He is

remembered as a pioneer of philology in England, and as a great scholar

in his day, though much of his work is now obsolete. The _New Cratylus_

(1839), the book on which his fame mainly rests, was an attempt to apply

to the Greek language the principles of comparative philology. It was

founded mainly on the comparative grammar of Bopp, but a large part of

it was original, Bopp's grammar not being completed till ten years after

the first edition of the _Cratylus_. In the _Varronianus_ (1844) the

same method was applied to Latin, Umbrian and Oscan. His _Jashar_

(1854), written in Latin as an appeal to the learned world, and

especially to German theologians, was an attempt to reconstitute the

lost biblical book of Jashar from the remains of old songs and

historical records, which, according to the author, are incorporated in

the existing text of the Old Testament. His bold views on the nature of

inspiration, and his free handling of the sacred text, aroused the anger

of the theologians. Of his numerous other works the most important are

_The Theatre of the Greeks; The History of the Literature of Ancient

Greece_ (a translation and completion of C. O. Muller's unfinished

work); editions of the _Odes_ of Pindar and the _Antigone_ of Sophocles;

a Hebrew, a Greek and a Latin Grammar.

DONATELLO (diminutive of Donato) (c. 1386-1466), Italian sculptor, was

the son of Niccolo di Betto Bardi, a member of the Florentine

Woolcombers' Gild, and was born in Florence probably in 1386. The date

is conjectural, since the scanty contemporary records of Donatello's

life are contradictory, the earliest documentary reference to the master

bearing the date 1406, when a payment is made to him as an independent

sculptor. That Donatello was educated in the house of the Martelli

family, as stated by Vasari, and that he owed to them his introduction

to his future friend and patron, Cosimo de' Medici, is very doubtful, in

view of the fact that his father had espoused the cause of the Albizzi

against the Medici, and was in consequence banished from Florence, where

his property was confiscated. It is, however, certain that Donatello

received his first training, according to the custom of the period, in a

goldsmith's workshop, and that he worked for a short time in Ghiberti's

studio. He was too young to enter the competition for the baptistery

gates in 1402, from which Ghiberti issued victorious against

Brunelleschi, Jacopo della Quercia, Niccolo d'Arezzo and other rivals.

But when Brunelleschi in his disappointment left Florence and went to

Rome to study the remains of classic art he was accompanied by young

Donatello. Whilst pursuing their studies and excavations on classic

soil, which made them talked about amongst the Romans of the day as

"treasure seekers," the two young men made a living by working at the

goldsmiths' shops. This Roman sojourn was decisive for the entire

development of Italian art in the 15th century, for it was during this

period that Brunelleschi undertook his measurements of the Pantheon dome

and of other Roman buildings, which enabled him to construct the noble

cupola of S. Maria del Fiore in Florence, while Donatello acquired his

knowledge of classic forms and ornamentation. The two masters, each in

his own sphere, were to become the leading spirits in the art movement

of the 15th century. Brunelleschi's buildings and Donatello's monuments

are the supreme expression of the spirit of the early Renaissance in

architecture and sculpture and exercised a potent influence upon the

painters of that age.

Donatello probably did not return to Florence before 1405, since the

earliest works in that city that can be traced to his chisel are two

small statues of "prophets" for the north door of the cathedral, for

which he received payment in November 1406 and in the beginning of 1408.

In the latter year he was entrusted with the important commissions for

the marble "David," now at the Bargello, and for the colossal seated

figure of "St John the Evangelist," which until 1588 occupied a niche of

the old cathedral facade, and is now placed in a dark chapel of the

Duomo. We find him next employed at Or San Michele, where between 1340

and 1406 only four of the fourteen niches had been filled. As the result

of a reminder sent by the Signory to the gilds who had undertaken to

furnish the statues, the services of Ciuffagni, Nanni di Banco, Ghiberti

and Donatello were enlisted, and Donatello completed between 1412 and

1415 the "St Peter," the "St George" (the original, now in the Bargello,

has been replaced by a copy) and the "St Mark." He probably also

assisted Nanni di Banco in his group of four saints. To this early

period--in spite of Dr Bode's contention, who places it about twenty

years later--belongs the wooden crucifix in S. Croce, the most striking

instance of Donatello's realism in rendering the human form and his

first attempt at carving the nude. It is said that this crucifix was

executed in rivalry with Brunelleschi's noble work at S. Maria Novella,

and that Donatello, at the sight of his friend's work, exclaimed, "It

has been left to you to shape a real Christ, whilst I have made a

peasant." In this early group of statues, from the prophets for the

cathedral door to the "St George," can be followed the gradual advance

from Gothic stiffness of attitude and draping to a forceful rendering of

the human form and of movement, which is a distinct approach to the

classic ideal; from the massiveness of the heavily draped figure to easy

poise and muscular litheness. All these figures were carved in marble

and are admirably conceived in relation to their architectural setting.

In fact, so strong is this tendency that the "St Mark," when inspected

at the master's workshop, was disapproved of by the heads of the Gild of

Linen-weavers, but aroused public enthusiasm when placed _in situ_, and

at a later date received Michelangelo's unstinted admiration.

Between the completion of the niches for Or San Michele and his second

journey to Rome in 1433, Donatello was chiefly occupied with statuary

work for the campanile and the cathedral, though from this period dates

the bronze figure of the Baptist for the christening font of Orvieto

Cathedral, which was never delivered and is now among the treasures of

the Berlin museum. This, and the "St Louis of Toulouse," which

originally occupied a niche at Or San Michele and is now badly placed at

S. Croce, were the first works in bronze which owed their origin to the

partnership of Donatello with Michelozzo, who undertook the casting of

the models supplied by his senior. The marble statues for the campanile,

which are either proved to be Donatello's by documentary evidence or can

be recognized as his work from their style, are the "Abraham," wrought

by the master in conjunction with Giovanni di Bartolo (il Rosso); the

"St John the Baptist"; the so-called "Zuccone" (Jonah?); "Jeremiah";

"Habakuk" (?); the unknown "prophet" who is supposed to bear the

features of the humanist Poggio Bracciolini; and possibly he may have

had a share in the completion of the "Joshua" commenced by Ciuffagni in

1415. All these statues, and the "St John" at the Bargello, mark a bold

departure from the statuesque balance of the "St Mark" and "St George"

to an almost instantaneous impression of life. The fall of the draperies

is no longer arranged in harmonious lines, but is treated in an

accidental, massive, bold manner. At the same time the heads are no

longer, as it were, impersonal, but almost cruelly realistic character

portraits of actual people, just as the arms and legs and necks are

faithfully copied from life with all their angularities and deviations

from the lines of beauty. During this period Donatello executed some

work for the baptismal font at S. Giovanni in Siena, which Jacopo della

Quercia and his assistants had begun in 1416. Though the Florentine's

share in it is confined to a relief which may have been designed, or

even begun, by Jacopo, and a few statuettes, it is of considerable

importance in Donatello's life-work, as it includes his first attempt at

relief sculpture--except the marble relief on the socle of the "St

George"--his first female figures,--"Faith" and "Hope," and his first

_putti_. The relief, "Herod's Feast," shows already that power of

dramatic narration and the skill of expressing the depth of space by

varying the treatment from plastic roundness to the finest _stiacciato_,

which was to find its mature expression in the panels of the altar of S.

Antonio in Padua and of the pulpit of S. Lorenzo in Florence. The

casting of the pieces for the Siena font was probably done by

Michelozzo, who is also credited with an important share in the next two

monumental works, in the designing of which Donatello had to face a new

problem--the tomb of John XXIII. in the baptistery (begun about 1425),

and that of Cardinal Brancacci at S. Angelo a Nilo in Naples (executed

in Pisa, 1427). The noble recumbent figure of the defunct on the former,

the relief on the sarcophagus, and the whole architectural design, are

unquestionably due to Donatello; the figure of the pope is the most

beautiful tomb figure of the 15th century, and served as the model on

which Rossellino, Desiderio, and other sculptors of the following period

based their treatment of similar problems. Donatello's share in the

Naples monument is probably confined to the characteristic low relief of

the "Ascension." The baptistery tomb shows how completely Donatello had

mastered the forms of Renaissance architecture, even before his second

visit to Rome. An earlier proof of his knowledge of classic art is his

niche for the "St Louis" at Or S. Michele, now occupied by Verrocchio's

"Christ and St Thomas." Similar in treatment to the "Ascension" relief

is the "Charge to St Peter" at South Kensington, which is almost

impressionistic in its suggestion of distance and intervening atmosphere

expressed by the extreme slightness of the relief. Another important

work of this period, and not, as Vasari maintains, of Donatello's youth,

is the "Annunciation" relief, with its wealth of delicately wrought

Renaissance _motifs_ in the architectural setting.

When Cosimo, the greatest art patron of his time, was exiled from

Florence in 1433, Michelozzo accompanied him to Venice, whilst Donatello

for the second time went to Rome to drink once more at the source of

classic art. The two works which still testify to his presence in this

city, the "Tomb of Giovanni Crivelli" at S. Maria in Aracoeli, and the

"Ciborium" at St Peter's, bear the stamp of classic influence.

Donatello's return to Florence in the following year almost coincides

with Cosimo's. Almost immediately, in May 1434, he signed a contract for

the marble pulpit on the facade of Prato cathedral, the last work

executed in collaboration with Michelozzo, a veritable bacchanalian

dance of half-nude _putti_, pagan in spirit, passionate in its wonderful

rhythmic movement--the forerunner of the "singing tribune" for Florence

cathedral, at which he worked intermittently from 1433 to 1440, and

which is now restored to its original complete form at the museum of the

Opera del Duomo. But Donatello's greatest achievement of his "classic

period" is the bronze "David" at the Bargello, the first nude statue of

the Renaissance, the first figure conceived in the round, independent of

any architectural surroundings--graceful, well-proportioned, superbly

balanced, suggestive of Greek art in the simplification of form, and yet

realistic, without any striving after ideal proportions. The same

tendencies are to be noted in the bronze _putto_ at the Bargello.

In 1443 Donatello was invited to Padua to undertake the decoration of

the high altar of S. Antonio, but in the period preceding his departure

he not only assisted Brunelleschi in the decoration of the sacristy of

S. Lorenzo, towards which the bronze doors are his chief contribution,

but found time to chisel, or model in wax or terra-cotta, for Cosimo and

other private patrons, most of the portrait busts and small reliefs,

which are now distributed over the museums of the world. His first work

in Padua was the bronze crucifix for the high altar, a work immeasurably

superior to the early wooden crucifix at S. Croce, both as regards

nobility of expression and subtlety of form. In the very year when

Donatello arrived in Padua the famous Condottiere Erasmo de' Narni,

called Gattamelata, had died, and when it was decided to honour his

memory with an equestrian statue, it was only natural that this master

should be chosen to undertake a task from the difficulties of which all

others may well have shrunk--had shrunk, indeed, since classic times.

This commission, and the reliefs and figures for the high altar, kept

Donatello in Padua for ten years, though during that time he visited

Venice (where he carved the wooden "St John" at the Frari) and probably

Mantua, Ferrara and Modena. At least, he was in communication with of

Borso d'Este of Modena about a project for an equestrian statue, and had

to give expert opinion about two equestrian statues at Ferrara. In his

workshop in Padua he gathered around him quite a small army of

assistants, stone-carvers, metal-workers, painters, gilders and

bronze-casters. The Gattamelata was finished and set up in 1453--a work

powerful and majestic in its very repose; there is no striving for

dramatic effect, no exaggerated muscular action, but the whole thing is

dominated by the strong, energetic head, which is modelled with the

searching realism of the Zuccone and the Poggio heads. The high altar,

for which Donatello executed twenty-two reliefs, seven statues and the

crucifix, was completed in 1450, but had subsequently to undergo many

changes, in the course of which the original disposition of the

sculptures was entirely lost sight of, the present arrangement being due

to Camillo Boito (1895). The chief features of the altar are the

wonderfully animated and dramatic bronze reliefs, four in number, of the

"Miracles of St Anthony."

With the exception of another visit to Siena in 1457, of which the

bronze "St John" in the cathedral is a reminder, Donatello spent the

remaining years of his life in Florence. Closely akin to the rugged "St

John" at Siena, and therefore probably contemporaneous, is the

repulsively ugly, emaciated "Magdalen" at the baptistery in Florence.

The dramatic intensity of the "Judith" group in the Loggia de' Lanzi,

which was originally placed in the court of the Medici Palace, marks it

as belonging to the post-Paduan period of the master's life. His last

work of importance was the bronze reliefs for the pulpit of S. Lorenzo,

commissioned about 1460, and finished after Donatello's death by his

pupil Bertoldo. The reliefs of the "Flagellation" and "Crucifixion" at

the Victoria and Albert Museum are typical examples of the master's

style at this closing period of his life. He died on the 13th of

December 1466.

As happened subsequently to Velazquez and Frans Hals, Donatello, whose

supreme mastery had been acknowledged by Michelangelo, Raphael and the

other giants of the late Renaissance, almost sank into oblivion during

the 18th and early 19th centuries, and only in comparatively recent

times has he been restored to the eminent position which is his due in

the history of art. The full power of his genius was only revealed to

the world when, at the quincentenary celebration of his birth, the

greater part of his life-work was brought together in Florence. The

large hall at the Bargello has ever since been devoted to the display of

his works, the numerous original bronzes and marbles and terra-cottas

being supplemented by casts of works at other places, such as the

colossal Gattamelata monument.

AUTHORITIES.--Before the date of the Florence exhibition in 1886 the

only books on the subject of Donatello--apart from references in

general histories of art--were Pastor's _Donatello_ (Giessen, 1882)

and Semper's _Donatello, seine Zeit und seine Schule_ (Vienna, 1875).

Since then the great Florentine sculptor has received attention from

many of the leading art writers, though England has only contributed a

not very complete record of his life and work by Hope Rea, _Donatello_

(London, 1900), and an excellent critical study by Lord Balcarres,

_Donatello_ (London, 1903), besides a translation of A. G. Meyer's

fully illustrated and exhaustive monograph in the Knackfuss series

(London, 1904). Other notable books on the subject are:--Eugene Muntz,

_Donatello_ (Paris, 1885), and in the series of _Les Artistes

celebres_ (Paris, 1890); Schmarzow, _Donatello_ (Breslau, 1886);

Cavalucci, _Vita ed opere del Donatello_ (Milan, 1886); Tschudi,

_Donatello e la critica moderna_ (Turin, 1887); Reymond, _Donatello_

(Florence, 1899); and Bode, _Florentiner Bildhauer der Renaissance_

(_Donatello als Architekt und Dekorator, Die Madonnenreliefs

Donatellos_) (Berlin, 1902). (P. G. K.)

DONATI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA (1826-1873), Italian astronomer, was born at

Pisa on the 16th of December 1826. He entered the observatory of

Florence as a student in 1852, became assistant to G. B. Amici in 1854,

and was appointed in 1864 to succeed him as director. A new observatory

at Arcetri near Florence, built under his supervision, was completed in

1872. During the ten years 1854-1864 Donati discovered six comets, one

of which, first seen on the 2nd of June 1858, bears his name (see

COMET). He observed the total solar eclipse of the 18th of July 1860, at

Torreblanca in Spain, and in the same year began experiments in stellar

spectroscopy. In 1862 he published a memoir, _Intorno alle strie degli

spettri stellari_, which indicated the feasibility of a physical

classification of the stars; and on the 5th of August 1864 discovered

the gaseous composition of comets by submitting to prismatic analysis

the light of one then visible. An investigation of the great aurora of

the 4th of February 1872 led him to refer such phenomena to a distinct

branch of science, designated by him "cosmical meteorology"; but he was

not destined to prosecute the subject. Attending the International

Meteorological Congress of August 1873 at Vienna, he fell ill of

cholera, and died a few hours after his arrival at Arcetri, on the 20th

of September 1873.

See _Vierteljahrsschrift der astr. Gesellschaft_ (Leipzig), ix. 4;

_Monthly Notices Roy. Astr. Society_, xxxiv. 153; _Memorie degli

spettroscopisti italiani_, ii. 125 (G. Cacciatore); _Nature_, viii.

556; &c. (A. M. C.)

DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA (grant in case of death), in law, a gift of

personal property made in contemplation of death and intended either

expressly or impliedly to take complete effect only if the donor dies of

the illness affecting him at the time of the gift. The conception as

well as the name is borrowed from Roman law, and the definition given by

Justinian (_Inst._ ii. 7. 1) applies equally to a _donatio mortis causa_

in Roman and English law. A distinction, however, has arisen between the

English and civil codes; by English law delivery either actual or (when

from the nature of the thing actual delivery is impossible) constructive

is essential, and this delivery must pass not only the possession but

the dominion of the thing given; by the civil law, in some cases at

least, delivery of possession was not essential (see the judgment of

Lord Chancellor Hardwicke in _Ward_ v. _Turner_, 1751, 2 Ves. sen. 431,

where the whole question is exhaustively discussed). A _donatio mortis

causa_ stands halfway between a gift _inter vivos_ and a legacy, and has

some of the characteristics of each form of disposition. It resembles a

legacy in that (1) it is revocable during the donor's life, (2) it is

subject to legacy and estate duty, and (3) it is liable to satisfy debts

of the testator in default of other assets. On the other hand, it

resembles a gift _inter vivos_ in that it takes effect from delivery;

therefore the consent of the executor is not necessary. Anything may be

the subject of a _donatio mortis causa_, the absolute property in which

can be made to pass by delivery after the donor's death either in law or

equity; this will cover bankers' deposit notes, bills of exchange, and

notes and cheques of a third person, but not promissory notes and

cheques of the donor in favour of the donee, for the donor's signature

is merely an authority for his banker to pay, which is revoked by his

death.

DONATION OF CONSTANTINE (_Donatio Constantini_), the supposed grant by

the emperor Constantine, in gratitude for his conversion by Pope

Silvester, to that pope and his successors for ever, not only of

spiritual supremacy over the other great patriarchates and over all

matters of faith and worship, but also of temporal dominion over Rome,

Italy and "the provinces, places and _civitates_ of the western

regions." The famous document, known as the _Constitutum Constantini_

and compounded of various elements (notably the apocryphal _Vita S.

Silvestri_), was forged at Rome some time between the middle and end of

the 8th century, was included in the 9th century in the collection known

as the False Decretals, two centuries later was incorporated in the

_Decretum_ by a pupil of Gratian, and in Gibbon's day was still

"enrolled among the decrees of the canon law," though already rejected

"by the tacit or modest censure of the advocates of the Roman church."

It is now universally admitted to be a gross forgery.[1] In spite,

however, of Gibbon's characteristic scepticism on this point, it is

certain that the _Constitutum_ was regarded as genuine both by the

friends and the enemies of the papal pretensions throughout the middle

ages.[2] Though no use of it was made by the popes during the 9th and

10th centuries, it was quoted as authoritative by eminent ecclesiastics

of the Frankish empire (e.g. by Ado of Vienne and Hincmar of Reims), and

it was employed by two Frankish popes, Gregory V. and Silvester II., in

urging certain territorial claims. But not till 1050 was it made the

basis of the larger papal claims, when another Frankish pope, Leo IX.,

used it in his controversy with the Byzantines. From this time forward

it was increasingly used by popes and canonists in support of the papal

pretensions, and from the 12th century onwards became a powerful weapon

of the spiritual against the temporal powers. It is, however, as

Cardinal Hergenrother points out, possible to exaggerate its importance

in this respect; a charter purporting to be a grant by an emperor to a

pope of spiritual as well as temporal jurisdiction was at best a

double-edged weapon; and the popes generally preferred to base their

claim to universal sovereignty on their direct commission as vicars of

God. By the partisans of the Empire, on the other hand, the Donation was

looked upon as the _fons et origo malorum_, and Constantine was regarded

as having, in his new-born zeal, betrayed his imperial trust. The

expression of this opinion is not uncommon in medieval literature (e.g.

Walther von der Vogelweide, Pfeiffer's edition, 1880, Nos. 85 and 164),

the most famous instance being in the _Inferno_ of Dante (xix. 115):

"Ahi, Costantin, di questo mal fu matre

Non la tua conversion, ma quella dote

Che da te prese il primo ricco patre!"

The genuineness of the _Constitutum_ was first critically assailed by

Laurentius Valla in 1440, whose _De falso credita et ementita

Constantini donatione declamatio_ opened a controversy that lasted

until, at the close of the 18th century, the defence was silenced. In

modern times the controversy as to the genuineness of the document has

been succeeded by a debate scarcely less lively as to its date, its

authorship and place of origin. The efforts of Roman Catholic scholars

have been directed (since Baronius ascribed the forgery to the Greeks)

to proving that the fraud was not committed at Rome. Thus Cardinal

Hergenrother holds that it was written by a Frank in the 9th century, in

order to prove that the Greeks had been rightfully expelled from Italy

and that Charlemagne was legitimate emperor. This view, with variations,

was maintained by the writer of an article in the _Civilta cattolica_ in

1864 (_Serie_ v. vol. x. pp. 303, &c.) and supported by Grauert, who

maintains that the document was concocted at the abbey of St Denis,

after 840. The evidence now available, however, confirms those who

ascribe an earlier date to the forgery and place it at Rome. The view

held by Gibbon and Dollinger among others,[3] that the _Constitutum_ is

referred to in the letter of Pope Adrian I. to Charlemagne (778), is

now indeed largely rejected; there is nothing in the letter to make such

an assumption safe, and the same must be said of Friedrich's attempt to

find such reference in the letter addressed in 785 by the same pope to

Constantine VI., emperor of the East, and his mother Irene. Still less

safe is it to ascribe the authorship of the forgery to any particular

pope on the ground of its style; for papal letters were drawn up in the

papal chancery and the style employed there was apt to persist through

several pontificates. Friedrich's theory that the _Constitutum_ is a

composite document, part written in the 7th century, part added by Paul

I. when a deacon under Stephen II., though supported by a wealth of

learning, has been torn to tatters by more than one critic (G. Kruger,

L. Loening).

On one point, however, a fair amount of agreement seems now to have been

reached, a result due to the labour in collating documents of

Scheffer-Boichorst, namely, that the style of the _Constitutum_ is

generally that of the papal chancery in the latter half of the 8th

century. This being granted, there is room for plentiful speculation as

to where and why it was concocted. We may still hold the opinion of

Dollinger that it was intended to impress the barbarian Pippin and

justify in his eyes the Frank intervention in favour of the pope in

Italy; or we may share the view of Loening (rejected by Brunner,

_Rechtsgeschichte_) that the forgery was a pious fraud on the part of a

cleric of the Curia, committed under Adrian I.,[4] with the idea of

giving a legal basis to territorial dominion which that pope had

succeeded in establishing in Italy. The donations of Pippin and

Charlemagne established him as sovereign _de facto_; the donation of

Constantine was to proclaim him as sovereign _de jure_. It is

significant in this connexion that it was under Adrian (c. 774) that the

papal chancery ceased to date by the regnal years of the Eastern emperor

and substituted that of the pontificate. Dollinger's view is supported

and carried a step further by H. Bohmer, who by an ingenious argument

endeavours to prove that the _Constitutum_ was forged in 753, probably

by the notary Christophorus, and was carried with him by Pope Stephen

II. to the court of Pippin, in 754, with an eye to the acquisition of

the Exarchate. In support of this argument it is to be noted that the

forged document first appears at the abbey of St Denis, where Stephen

spent the winter months of 754. E. Mayer, on the other hand, denies that

the _Constitutum_ can have been forged before the news of the

iconoclastic decrees of the council of Constantinople of 754 had reached

Rome. He lays stress on the relation of the supposed confession of faith

of Constantine, embodied in the forgery, to that issued by the emperor

Constantine V., pointing out the efforts made by the Byzantines between

756 and the synod of Gentilly in 767 to detach Pippin from the cause of

Rome and the holy images. The forgery thus had a double object: as a

weapon against Byzantine heresy and as a defence of the papal patrimony.

As the result of an exhaustive analysis of the text and of the political

and religious events of the time, Mayer comes to the conclusion that the

document was forged about 775, i.e. at the time when Charlemagne was

beginning to reverse the policy by which in 774 he had confirmed the

possession of the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento to the pope.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--See Dollinger, _Papstfabeln des Mittelalters_ (Munich,

1863; Eng. trans. A. Plummer, 1871); "Janus," _Der Pabst und das

Konzil_ (Munich, 1869; Eng. trans. 1869); Hergenrother, _Catholic

Church and Christian State_ (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1872; Eng. trans. 2

vols. 1876); W. Martens, _Die romische Frage unter Pippin u. Karl d.

Grossen_ (Stuttgart, 1881), with text; H. Grauert, "Die

Konstantinische Schenkung" in _Hist. Jahrb. der Gorres-Gesellsch._

iii. (1882), iv. (1883); Langen, "Entstehung u. Tendenz der Konst.

Schenkungsurkunde" in Sybel's _Hist. Zeitschr. l._ (1883); L. Weiland,

"Die Konst. Schenkung" in _Zeitschr. f. Kirchenrecht_, xxii.

(1887-1888), maintains that the _Constitutum_ was forged at Rome

between 813 and 875, in connexion with the papal claim to crown the

emperors; H. Brunner and K. Zeumer, _Die Konstantinische

Schenkungsurkunde_ (Berlin, 1888; Festgaben fur R. v. Gneist), with

text; Friedrich, _Die Konst. Schenkung_ (Nordlingen, 1889), with text;

W. Martens, _Die falsche Generalkonzession Konstantins des Grossen_

(Munich, 1889); P. Scheffer-Boichorst, "Neue Forschungen uber die

Konst. Schenkung," i. ii. _Mitteilungen des Instituts fur osterr.

Geschichtsforschung_, x. (1889), xi. (1890); G. Kruger, "Die Frage der

Entstehungszeit der Konst. Schenkung," in _Theologische

Literaturzeitung_, xiv. (1889); J. Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_,

vol. vii. p. 135 (Oxford, 1899); article "Konstantinische Schenkung,"

G. H. Bohmer, in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencykl._ (1902); E. Mayer, "Die

Schenkungen Konstantins und Pipins" in _Deutsche Zeitschr. fur

Kirchenrecht_ (Tubingen, 1904). Laurentius Valla's treatise was issued

in a new edition, with French translation and historical introduction,

by A. Bonneau, _La Donation de Constantin_ (Lisieux, 1879).

(W. A. P.)