have it. There are two introductions, the first i.-iv. 44, more
historical than hortatory; the second v.-xi., more hortatory than
historical. These may at first have been prefixed to separate editions
of the legislative portion, but were eventually combined. Then, before D
was united to P, five appendices of very various dates and embracing
poetry as well as prose, were added so as to give a fuller account of
the last days of Moses and thus lead up to the narrative of his death
with which the book closes. (1) Chap. xxvii., where the elders of Israel
are introduced for the first time as acting along with Moses (xxvii. 1)
and then the priests, the Levites (xxvii. 9). Some of the curses refer
to laws given not in D but in Lev. xxx., so that the date of this
chapter must be later than Leviticus or at any rate than the laws
codified in the Law of Holiness (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.). (2) The second
appendix, chaps, xxix.-xxxi. 29, xxxii. 45-47, gives us the farewell
address of Moses and is certainly later than D. Moses is represented as
speaking not with any hope of preventing Israel's apostasy but because
he knows that the people will eventually prove apostate (xxxi. 29), a
point of view very different from D's. (3) The Song of Moses, chap.
xxxii. That this didactic poem must have been written late in the
nation's history, and not at its very beginning, is evident from v. 7:
"Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations." Such
words cannot be interpreted so as to fit the lips of Moses. It must have
been composed in a time of natural gloom and depression, after Yahweh's
anger had been provoked by "a very froward generation," certainly not
before the Assyrian Empire had loomed up against the political horizon,
aggressive and menacing. Some critics bring the date down even to the
time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. (4) The Blessing of Moses, chap, xxxiii.
The first line proves that this poem is not by D, who speaks invariably
of Horeb, never of Sinai. The situation depicted is in striking contrast
with that of the Song. Everything is bright because of promises
fulfilled, and the future bids fair to be brighter still. Bruston
maintains with reason that the Blessing, strictly so called, consists
only of vv. 6-25, and has been inserted in a Psalm celebrating the
goodness of Jehovah to his people on their entrance into Canaan (vv.
1-5, 26-29). The special prominence given to Joseph (Ephraim and
Manasseh) in vv. 13-17 has led many critics to assign this poem to the
time of the greatest warrior-king of Northern Israel, Jeroboam II. (5)
The account of Moses' death, chap. xxxiv. This appendix, containing, as
it does, manifest traces of P, proves that even Deuteronomy was not put
into its present form until after the exile.
From the many coincidences between D and the Book of the Covenant (Ex.
xx.-xxiii.) it is clear that D was acquainted with E, the prophetic
narrative of the Northern kingdom; but it is not quite clear whether D
knew E as an independent work, or after its combination with J, the
somewhat earlier prophetic narrative of the Southern kingdom, the
combined form of which is now indicated by the symbol JE. Kittel
certainly puts it too strongly when he asserts that D quotes always from
E and never from J, for some of the passages alluded to in D may just as
readily be ascribed to J as to E, cf. Deut. i. 7 and Gen. xv. 18; Deut.
x. 14 and Ex. xxxiv. 1-4. Consequently D must have been written
certainly after E and possibly after E was combined with J.
In Amos, Hosea and Isaiah there are no traces of D's ideas, whereas in
Jeremiah and Ezekiel their influence is everywhere manifest. Hence this
school of thought arose between the age of Isaiah and that of Jeremiah;
but how long D itself may have been in existence before it was read in
622 to Josiah cannot be determined with certainty. Many argue that D was
written immediately before it was found and that, in fact, it was put
into the temple for the purpose of being "found." This theory gives some
plausibility to the charge that the book is a pious fraud. But the
narrative in 2 Kings xxii. warrants no such inference. The more natural
explanation is that it was written not in the early years of Josiah's
reign, and with the cognizance of the temple priests then in office, but
some time during the long reign of Manasseh, probably when his policy
was most reactionary and when he favoured the worship of the "host of
heaven" and set up altars to strange gods in Jerusalem itself. This
explains why the author did not publish his work immediately, but placed
it where he hoped it would be safely preserved till opportunity should
arise for its publication. One need not suppose that he actually foresaw
how favourable that opportunity would prove, and that, as soon as
discovered, his work would be promulgated as law by the king and
willingly accepted by the people. The author believed that everything he
wrote was in full accordance with the mind of Moses, and would
contribute to the national weal of Yahweh's covenant people, and
therefore he did not scruple to represent Moses as the speaker. It is
not to be expected that modern scholars should be able to fix the exact
year or even decade in which such a book was written. It is enough to
determine with something like probability the century or half-century
which best fits its historical data; and these appear to point to the
reign of Manasseh.
Between D and P there are no verbal parallels; but in the historical
résumés JE is followed closely, whole clauses and even verses being
copied practically verbatim. As Dr Driver points out in his careful
analysis, there are only three facts in D which are not also found in
JE, viz. the number of the spies, the number of souls that went down
into Egypt with Jacob, and the ark being made of acacia wood. But even
these may have been in J or E originally, and left out when JE was
combined with P. Steuernagel divides the legal as well as the hortatory
parts of D between two authors, one of whom uses the 2nd person plural
when addressing Israel, and the other the 2nd person singular; but as a
similar alternation is constantly found in writings universally
acknowledged to be by the same author, this clue seems anything but
trustworthy, depending as it does on the presence or absence of a single
Hebrew letter, and resulting, as it frequently does, in the division of
verses which otherwise seem to be from the same pen (cf. xx. 2). The
inference as to diversity of authorship is much more conclusive when
difference of standpoint can be proved, cf. v. 3, xi. 2 ff. with viii.
2. The first two passages represent Moses as addressing the generation
that was alive at Horeb, whereas the last represents him as speaking to
those who were about to pass over Jordan a full generation later; and it
may well be that the one author may, in the historical and hortatory
parts, have preferred the 2nd plural and the other the 2nd singular;
without the further inference being justified that every law in which
the 2nd singular is used must be assigned to the latter, and every law
in which the 2nd plural occurs must be due to the former.
The law of the Single Sanctuary, one of D's outstanding characteristics,
is, for him, an innovation, but an innovation towards which events had
long been tending. 2 Kings xxiii. 9 shows that even the zeal of Josiah
could not carry out the instructions laid down in D xviii. 6-8. Josiah's
acceptance of D made it the first canonical book of scripture. Thus the
religion of Judah became henceforward a religion which enabled its
adherents to learn from a book exactly what was required of them. D
requires the destruction not only of the high places and the idols, but
of the Asheras (wooden posts) and the Mazzebas (stone pillars) often set
up beside the altar of Jehovah (xvi. 21). These reforms made too heavy
demands upon the people, as was proved by the reaction which set in at
Josiah's death. Indeed the country people would look on the destruction
of the high places with their Asheras and Mazzebas as sacrilege and
would consider Josiah's death in battle as a divine punishment for his
sacrilegious deeds. On the other hand, the destruction of Jerusalem and
the exile of the people would appear to those who had obeyed D's
instructions as a well-merited punishment for national apostasy.
Moreover, D regarded religion as of the utmost moment to each individual
Israelite; and it is certainly not by accident that the declaration of
the individual's duty towards God immediately follows the emphatic
intimation to Israel of Yahweh's unity. "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh is our
God, Yahweh is one: and thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thine
heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength" (vi. 4, 5).
In estimating the religious value of Deuteronomy it should never be
forgotten that upon this passage the greatest eulogy ever pronounced on
any scripture was pronounced by Christ himself, when he said "on these
words hang all the law and the prophets," and it is also well to
remember that when tempted in the wilderness he repelled each suggestion
of the Tempter by a quotation from Deuteronomy.
Nevertheless even such a writer as D could not escape the influence of
the age and atmosphere in which he lived; and despite the spirit of love
which breathes so strongly throughout the book, especially for the poor,
the widow and the fatherless, the stranger and the homeless Levite
(xxiv. 10-22), and the humanity shown towards both beasts and birds
(xxii. 1, 4, 6 f., xxv. 4), there are elements in D which go far to
explain the intense exclusiveness and the religious intolerance
characteristic of Judaism. Should a man's son or friend dear to him as
his own soul seek to tempt him from the faith of his fathers, D's
pitiless order to that man is "Thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand
shall be first upon him to put him to death." From this single instance
we see not only how far mankind has travelled along the path of
religious toleration since Deuteronomy was written, but also how very
far the criticism implied in Christ's method of dealing with what "was
said to them of old time" may be legitimately carried. (J. A. P.*)
DEUTSCH, IMMANUEL OSCAR MENAHEM (1829-1873), German oriental scholar,
was born on the 28th of October 1829, at Neisse in Prussian Silesia, of
Jewish extraction. On reaching his sixteenth year he began his studies
at the university of Berlin, paying special attention to theology and
the Talmud. He also mastered the English language and studied English
literature. In 1855 Deutsch was appointed assistant in the library of
the British Museum. He worked intensely on the Talmud and contributed no
less than 190 papers to _Chambers's Encyclopaedia_, in addition to
essays in Kitto's and Smith's Biblical Dictionaries, and articles in
periodicals. In October 1867 his article on "The Talmud," published in
the _Quarterly Review_, made him known. It was translated into French,
German, Russian, Swedish, Dutch and Danish. He died at Alexandria on the
12th of May 1873.
His _Literary Remains_, edited by Lady Strangford, were published in
1874, consisting of nineteen papers on such subjects as "The Talmud,"
"Islam," "Semitic Culture," "Egypt, Ancient and Modern," "Semitic
Languages," "The Targums," "The Samaritan Pentateuch," and "Arabic
Poetry."
DEUTSCHKRONE, a town of Germany, kingdom of Prussia, between the two
lakes of Arens and Radau, 15 m. N.W. of Schneidemühl, a railway junction
60 m. north of Posen. Pop. (1905) 7282. It is the seat of the public
offices for the district, possesses an Evangelical and a Roman Catholic
church, a synagogue, and a gymnasium established in the old Jesuit
college, and has manufactures of machinery, woollens, tiles, brandy and
beer.
DEUTZ (anc. _Divitio_), formerly an independent town of Germany, in the
Prussian Rhine Province, on the right bank of the Rhine, opposite to
Cologne, with which it has been incorporated since 1888. It contains the
church of St Heribert, built in the 17th century, cavalry barracks,
artillery magazines, and gas, porcelain, machine and carriage factories.
It has a handsome railway station on the banks of the Rhine, negotiating
the local traffic with Elberfeld and Königswinter. The fortifications of
the town form part of the defences of Cologne. To the east is the
manufacturing suburb of Kalk.
The old castle in Deutz was in 1002 made a Benedictine monastery by
Heribert, archbishop of Cologne. Permission to fortify the town was in
1230 granted to the citizens by the archbishop of Cologne, between whom
and the counts of Berg it was in 1240 divided. It was burnt in 1376,
1445 and 1583; and in 1678, after the peace of Nijmwegen, the
fortifications were dismantled; rebuilt in 1816, they were again razed
in 1888.
DEUX-SÈVRES, an inland department of western France, formed in 1790
mainly of the three districts of Poitou, Thouarsais, Gâtine and
Niortais, added to a small portion of Saintonge and a still smaller
portion of Aunis. Area, 2337 sq. m. Pop. (1906) 339,466. It is bounded
N. by Maine-et-Loire, E. by Vienne, S.E. by Charente, S. by
Charente-Inférieure and W. by Vendée. The department takes its name from
two rivers--the Sèvre of Niort which traverses the southern portion, and
the Sèvre of Nantes (an affluent of the Loire) which drains the
north-west. There are three regions--the Gâtine, occupying the north and
centre of the department, the Plaine in the south and the
Marais,--distinguished by their geological character and their general
physical appearance. The Gâtine, formed of primitive rocks (granite and
schists), is the continuation of the "Bocage" of Vendée and
Maine-et-Loire. Its surface is irregular and covered with hedges and
clumps of wood or forests. The systematic application of lime has much
improved the soil, which is naturally poor. The Plaine, resting on
oolite limestone, is treeless but fertile. The Marais, a low-lying
district in the extreme south-west, consists of alluvial clays which also
are extremely productive when properly drained. The highest points,
several of which exceed 700 ft., are found in a line of hills which
begins in the centre of the department, to the south of Parthenay, and
stretches north-west into the neighbouring department of Vendée. It
divides the region drained by the Sèvre Nantaise and the Thouet (both
affluents of the Loire) in the north from the basins of the Sèvre
Niortaise and the Charente in the south. The climate is mild, the annual
temperature at Niort being 54° Fahr., and the rainfall nearly 25 in. The
winters are colder in the Gâtine, the summers warmer in the Plaine.
Three-quarters of the entire area of Deux-Sèvres, which is primarily an
agricultural department, consists of arable land. Wheat and oats are the
main cereals. Potatoes and mangold-wurzels are the chief root-crops.
Niort is a centre for the growing Of vegetables (onions, asparagus,
artichokes, &c.) and of angelica. Considerable quantities of beetroot
are raised to supply the distilleries of Melle. Colza, hemp, rape and
flax are also cultivated. Vineyards are numerous in the neighbourhood of
Bressuire in the north, and of Niort and Melle in the south. The
department is well known for the Parthenay breed of cattle and the
Poitou breed of horses; and the mules reared in the southern
arrondissements are much sought after both in France and in Spain. The
system of co-operative dairying is practised in some localities. The
apple-trees of the Gâtine and the walnut-trees of the Plaine bring a
good return. Coal is mined, and the department produces building-stone
and lime. A leading industry is the manufacture of textiles (serges,
druggets, linen, handkerchiefs, flannels, swan-skins and knitted goods).
Tanning and leather-dressing are carried on at Niort and other places,
and gloves are made at Niort. Wool and cotton spinning, hat and shoe
making, distilling, brewing, flour-milling and oil-refining are also
main industries. The department exports cattle and sheep to Paris and
Poitiers; also cereals, oils, wines, vegetables and its industrial
products.
The Sèvre Niortaise and its tributary the Mignon furnish 19 m. of
navigable waterway. The department is served by the Ouest-État railway.
It contains a large proportion of Protestants, especially in the
south-east. The four arrondissements are Niort, Bressuire, Melle and
Parthenay; the cantons number 31, and the communes 356. Deux-Sèvres is
part of the region of the IX. army corps, and of the diocese and the
académie (educational circumscription) of Poitiers, where also is its
court of appeal.
Niort (the capital), Bressuire, Melle, Parthenay, St Maixent, Thouars
and Oiron are the principal places in the department. Several other
towns contain features of interest. Among these are Airvault, where
there is a church of the 12th and 14th centuries which once belonged to
the abbey of St Pierre, and an ancient bridge built by the monks;
Celles-sur-Belle, where there is an old church rebuilt by Louis XI., and
again in the 17th century; and St Jouin-de-Marnes, with a fine
Romanesque church with Gothic restoration, which belonged to one of the
most ancient abbeys of Gaul.
DEVA (Sanskrit "heavenly"), in Hindu and Buddhist mythology, spirits of
the light and air, and minor deities generally beneficent. In Persian
mythology, however, the word is used for evil spirits or demons.
According to Zoroaster the devas were created by Ahriman.
DEVA (mod. _Chester_), a Roman legionary fortress in Britain on the Dee.
It was occupied by Roman troops about A.D. 48 and held probably till the
end of the Roman dominion. Its garrison was the Legio XX. Valeria
Victrix, with which another legion (II. Adjutrix) was associated for a
few years, about A.D. 75-85. It never developed, like many Roman
legionary fortresses, into a town, but remained military throughout.
Parts of its north and east walls (from Morgan's Mount to Peppergate)
and numerous inscriptions remain to indicate its character and area.
See F. J. Haverfield, _Catalogue of the Grosvenor Museum, Chester_
(Chester, 1900), Introduction.
DEVADATTA, the son of Suklodana, who was younger brother to the father
of the Buddha (_Mah[=a]vastu_, iii. 76). Both he and his brother
[=A]nanda, who were considerably younger than the Buddha, joined the
brotherhood in the twentieth year of the Buddha's ministry. Four other
cousins of theirs, chiefs of the S[=a]kiya clan, and a barber named
Up[=a]li, were admitted to the order at the same time; and at their own
request the barber was admitted first, so that as their senior in the
order he should take precedence of them (_Vinaya Texts_, iii. 228). All
the others continued loyal disciples, but Devadatta, fifteen years
afterwards, having gained over the crown prince of Magadha,
Aj[=a]tasattu, to his side, made a formal proposition, at the meeting of
the order, that the Buddha should retire, and hand over the leadership
to him, Devadatta (_Vinaya Texts_, iii. 238; _J[=a]taka_, i. 142). This
proposal was rejected, and Devadatta is said in the tradition to have
successfully instigated the prince to the execution of his aged father
and to have made three abortive attempts to bring about the death of the
Buddha (_Vinaya Texts_, iii. 241-250; _J[=a]taka_, vi. 131), shortly
afterwards, relying upon the feeling of the people in favour of
asceticism, he brought forward four propositions for ascetic rules to be
imposed on the order. These being refused, he appealed to the people,
started an order of his own, and gained over 500 of the Buddha's
community to join in the secession. We hear nothing further about the
success or otherwise of the new order, but it may possibly be referred
to under the name of the Gotamakas, in the _Anguttara_ (see _Dialogues
of the Buddha_ i. 222), for Devadatta's family name was Gotama. But his
community was certainly still in existence in the 4th century A.D., for
it is especially mentioned by Fa Hien, the Chinese pilgrim (Legge's
translation, p. 62). And it possibly lasted till the 7th century, for
Hsüan Tsang mentions that in a monastery in Bengal the monks then
followed a certain regulation of Devadatta's (T. Watters, _On Yuan
Chwang_, ii. 191). There is no mention in the canon as to how or when
Devadatta died; but the commentary on the _J[=a]taka_, written in the
5th century A.D., has preserved a tradition that he was swallowed up by
the earth near S[=a]vatthi, when on his way to ask pardon of the Buddha
(_J[=a]taka_, iv. 158). The spot where this occurred was shown to both
the pilgrims just mentioned (Fa Hien, loc. cit. p. 60; and T. Watters,
_On Yuan Chwang_, i. 390). It is a striking example of the way in which
such legends grow, that it is only the latest of these authorities,
Hsüan Tsang, who says that, though ostensibly approaching the Buddha
with a view to reconciliation, Devadatta had concealed poison in his
nail with the object of murdering the Buddha.
AUTHORITIES.--_Vinaya Texts_, translated by Rhys Davids and H.
Oldenberg (3 vols., Oxford, 1881-1885); _The J[=a]taka_, edited by V.
Fausböll (7 vols., London, 1877-1897); T. Watters, _On Yuan Chwang_
(ed. Rhys Davids and Bushell, 2 vols., London, 1904-1905); _Fa Hian_,
translated by J. Legge (Oxford, 1886); _Mah[=a]vastu_ (ed. Tenant, 3
vols., Paris, 1882-1897). (T. W. R. D.)
DEVAPRAYAG (DEOPRAYAG), a village in Tehri State of the United
Provinces, India. It is situated at the spot where the rivers Alaknanda
and Bhagirathi unite and form the Ganges, and as one of the five sacred
confluences in the hills is a great place of pilgrimage for devout
Hindus. Devaprayag stands at an elevation of 2265 ft. on the side of a
hill which rises above it 800 ft. On a terrace in the upper part of the
village is the temple of Raghunath, built of huge uncemented stones,
pyramidical in form and capped by a white cupola.
DEVENS, CHARLES (1820-1891), American lawyer and jurist, was born in
Charlestown, Massachusetts, on the 4th of April 1820. He graduated at
Harvard College in 1838, and at the Harvard law school in 1840, and was
admitted to the bar in Franklin county, Mass., where he practised from
1841 to 1849. In the year 1848 he was a Whig member of the state senate,
and from 1849 to 1853 was United States marshal for Massachusetts, in
which capacity he was called upon in 1851 to remand the fugitive slave,
Thomas Sims, to slavery. This he felt constrained to do, much against
his personal desire; and subsequently he attempted in vain to purchase
Sims's freedom, and many years later appointed him to a position in the
department of justice at Washington. Devens practised law at Worcester
from 1853 until 1861, and throughout the Civil War served in the Federal
army, becoming colonel of volunteers in July 1861 and brigadier-general
of volunteers in April 1862. At the battle of Ball's Bluff (1861) he was
severely wounded; he was again wounded at Fair Oaks (1862) and at
Chancellorsville (1863), where he commanded a division. He later
distinguished himself at Cold Harbor, and commanded a division in
Grant's final campaign in Virginia (1864-65), his troops being the first
to occupy Richmond after its fall. Breveted major-general in 1865, he
remained in the army for a year as commander of the military district of
Charleston, South Carolina. He was a judge of the Massachusetts superior
court from 1867 to 1873, and was an associate justice of the supreme
court of the state from 1873 to 1877, and again from 1881 to 1891. From
1877 to 1881 he was attorney-general of the United States in the cabinet
of President Hayes. He died at Boston, Mass., on the 7th of January
1891.
See his _Orations and Addresses_, with a memoir by John Codman Ropes
(Boston, 1891).
DEVENTER, a town in the province of Overysel, Holland, on the right bank
of the Ysel, at the confluence of the Schipbeek, and a junction station
10 m. N. of Zutphen by rail. It is also connected by steam tramway S.E.
with Brokulo. Pop. (1900) 26,212. Deventer is a neat and prosperous town
situated in the midst of prettily wooded environs, and containing many
curious old buildings. There are three churches of special interest: the
Groote Kerk (St Lebuinus), which dates from 1334, and occupies the site
of an older structure of which the 11th-century crypt remains; the Roman
Catholic Broederkerk, or Brothers' Church, containing among its relics
three ancient gospels said to have been written by St Lebuinus (Lebwin),
the English apostle of the Frisians and Westphalians (d. c. 773); and
the Bergkerk, dedicated in 1206, which has two late Romanesque towers.
The town hall (1693) contains a remarkable painting of the town council
by Terburg. In the fine square called the Brink is the old weigh-house,
now a school (gymnasium), built in 1528, with a large external staircase
(1644). The gymnasium is descended from the Latin school of which the
celebrated Alexander Hegius was master in the third quarter of the 15th
century, when the young Erasmus was sent to it, and at which Adrian
Floreizoon, afterwards Pope Adrian VI., is said to have been a pupil
about the same time. Another famous educational institution was the
"Athenaeum" or high school, founded in 1630, at which Henri Renery (d.
1639) taught philosophy, while Johann Friedrich Gronov (Gronovius)
(1611-1671) taught rhetoric and history in the middle of the same
century. The "Athenaeum" disappeared in 1876. In modern times Deventer
possessed a famous teacher in Dr Burgersdyk (d. 1900), the Dutch
translator of Shakespeare. The town library, also called the library of
the Athenaeum, includes many MSS. and _incunabula_, and a 13th-century
copy of _Reynard the Fox_. The archives of the town are of considerable
value. Besides a considerable agricultural trade, Deventer has important
iron foundries and carpet factories (the royal manufactory of Smyrna
carpets being especially famous); while cotton-printing, rope-making and
the weaving of woollens and silks are also carried on. A public official
is appointed to supervise the proper making of a form of gingerbread
known as "_Deventer Koek_," which has a reputation throughout Holland.
In the church of Bathmen, a village 5 m. E. of Deventer, some
14th-century frescoes were discovered in 1870.
In the 14th century Deventer was the centre of the famous religious and
educational movement associated with the name of GERHARD GROOT (q.v.),
who was a native of the town (see BROTHERS OF COMMON LIFE).
DE VERE, AUBREY THOMAS (1814-1902), Irish poet and critic, was born at
Curragh Chase, Co. Limerick, on the 10th of January 1814, being the
third son of Sir Aubrey de Vere Hunt (1788-1846). In 1832 his father
dropped the final name by royal licence. Sir Aubrey was himself a poet.
Wordsworth called his sonnets the "most perfect of the age." These and
his drama, _Mary Tudor_, were published by his son in 1875 and 1884.
Aubrey de Vere was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and in his
twenty-eighth year published _The Waldenses_, which he followed up in
the next year by _The Search after Proserpine_. Thenceforward he was
continually engaged, till his death on the 20th of January 1902, in the
production of poetry and criticism. His best-known works are: in verse,
_The Sisters_ (1861); _The Infant Bridal_ (1864); _Irish Odes_ (1869);
_Legends of St Patrick_ (1872); and _Legends of the Saxon Saints_
(1879); and in prose, _Essays chiefly on Poetry_ (1887); and _Essays
chiefly Literary and Ethical_ (1889). He also wrote a picturesque volume
of travel-sketches, and two dramas in verse, _Alexander the Great_
(1874); and _St Thomas of Canterbury_ (1876); both of which, though they
contain fine passages, suffer from diffuseness and a lack of dramatic
spirit. The characteristics of Aubrey de Vere's poetry are "high
seriousness" and a fine religious enthusiasm. His research in questions
of faith led him to the Roman Church; and in many of his poems, notably
in the volume of sonnets called _St Peter's Chains_ (1888), he made rich
additions to devotional verse. He was a disciple of Wordsworth, whose
calm meditative serenity he often echoed with great felicity; and his
affection for Greek poetry, truly felt and understood, gave dignity and
weight to his own versions of mythological idylls. But perhaps he will
be chiefly remembered for the impulse which he gave to the study of
Celtic legend and literature. In this direction he has had many
followers, who have sometimes assumed the appearance of pioneers; but
after Matthew Arnold's fine lecture on "Celtic Literature," nothing
perhaps did more to help the Celtic revival than Aubrey de Vere's tender
insight into the Irish character, and his stirring reproductions of the
early Irish epic poetry.
A volume of _Selections_ from his poems was edited in 1894 (New York
and London) by G. E. Woodberry.
DEVICE, a scheme, plan, simple mechanical contrivance; also a pattern or
design, particularly an heraldic design or emblem, often combined with a
motto or legend. "Device" and its doublet "devise" come from the two Old
French forms _devis_ and _devise_ of the Latin _divisa_, things divided,
from _dividere_, to separate, used in the sense of to arrange, set out,
apportion. "Devise," as a substantive, is now only used as a legal term
for a disposition of property by will, by a modern convention restricted
to a disposition of real property, the term "bequest" being used of
personalty (see WILL). This use is directly due to the Medieval Latin
meaning of _dividere_ = _testamento disponere_. In its verbal form,
"devise" is used not only in the legal sense, but also in the sense of
to plan, arrange, scheme.
DEVIL (Gr. [Greek: diabolos], "slanderer," from [Greek: diaballein], to
slander), the generic name for a spirit of evil, especially the supreme
spirit of evil, the foe of God and man. The word is used for minor evil
spirits in much the same sense as "demon." From the various
characteristics associated with this idea, the term has come to be
applied by analogy in many different senses. From the idea of evil as
degraded, contemptible and doomed to failure, the term is applied to
persons in evil plight, or of slight consideration. In English legal
phraseology "devil" and "devilling" are used of barristers who act as
substitutes for others. Any remuneration which the legal "devil" may
receive is purely a matter of private arrangement between them. In the
chancery division such remuneration is generally in the proportion of
one half of the fee which the client pays; "in the king's bench division
remuneration for 'devilling' of briefs or assisting in drafting and
opinions is not common" (see _Annual Practice_, 1907, p. 717). In a
similar sense an author may have his materials collected and arranged by
a literary hack or "devil." The term "printer's devil" for the errand
boy in a printing office probably combines this idea with that of his
being black with ink. The common notions of the devil as black,
ill-favoured, malicious, destructive and the like, have occasioned the
application of the term to certain animals (the Tasmanian devil, the
devil-fish, the coot), to mechanical contrivances (for tearing up cloth
or separating wool), to pungent, highly seasoned dishes, broiled or
fried. In this article we are concerned with the primary sense of the
word, as used in mythology and religion.
The primitive philosophy of animism involves the ascription of all
phenomena to personal agencies. As phenomena are good or evil, produce
pleasure or pain, cause weal or woe, a distinction in the character of
these agencies is gradually recognized; the agents of good become gods,
those of evil, demons. A tendency towards the simplification and
organization of the evil as of the good forces, leads towards belief in
outstanding leaders among the forces of evil. When the divine is most
completely conceived as unity, the demonic is also so conceived; and
over against God stands Satan, or the devil.
Although it is in connexion with Hebrew and Christian monotheism that
this belief in the devil has been most fully developed, yet there are
approaches to the doctrine in other religions. In Babylonian mythology
"the old serpent goddess 'the lady Nina' was transformed into the
embodiment of all that was hostile to the powers of heaven" (Sayce's
_Hibbert Lectures_, p. 283), and was confounded with the dragon Tiamat,
"a terrible monster, reappearing in the Old Testament writings as Rahab
and Leviathan, the principle of chaos, the enemy of God and man"
(Tennant's _The Fall and Original Sin_, p. 43), and according to Gunkel
(_Schöpfung und Chaos_, p. 383) "the original of the 'old serpent' of
Rev. xii. 9." In Egyptian mythology the serpent Apap with an army of
monsters strives daily to arrest the course of the boat of the luminous
gods. While the Greek mythology described the Titans as "enchained once
for all in their dark dungeons" yet Prometheus' threat remained to
disturb the tranquillity of the Olympian Zeus. In the German mythology
the army of darkness is led by Hel, the personification of twilight,
sunk to the goddess who enchains the dead and terrifies the living, and
Loki, originally the god of fire, but afterwards "looked upon as the
father of the evil powers, who strips the goddess of earth of her
adornments, who robs Thor of his fertilizing hammer, and causes the
death of Balder the beneficent sun." In Hindu mythology the Maruts,
Indra, Agni and Vishnu wage war with the serpent Ahi to deliver the
celestial cows or spouses, the waters held captive in the caverns of the
clouds. In the _Trimurti_, Brahm[=a] (the impersonal) is manifested as
Brahm[=a] (the personal creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Siva (the
destroyer). In Siva is perpetuated the belief in the god of Vedic times
Rudra, who is represented as "the wild hunter who storms over the earth
with his bands, and lays low with arrows the men who displease him"
(Chantepie de la Saussaye's _Religionsgeschichte_, 2nd ed., vol. ii. p.
25). The evil character of Siva is reflected in his wife, who as Kali
(the black) is the wild and cruel goddess of destruction and death. The
opposition of good and evil is most fully carried out in Zoroastrianism.
Opposed to Ormuzd, the author of all good, is Ahriman, the source of all
evil; and the opposition runs through the whole universe (D'Alviella's
_Hibbert Lectures_, pp. 158-164).
The conception of _Satan_ (Heb. [Hebrew: Satan], the adversary, Gr.
[Greek: Satanas], or [Greek: Satan], 2 Cor. xii. 7) belongs to the
post-exilic period of Hebrew development, and probably shows traces of
the influence of Persian on Jewish thought, but it has also its roots
in much older beliefs. An "evil spirit" possesses Saul (1 Sam. xvi. 14),
but it is "from the Lord." The same agency produces discord between
Abimelech and the Shechemites (Judges ix. 23). "A lying spirit in the
mouth of all his prophets" as Yahweh's messenger entices Ahab to his
doom (1 Kings xxii. 22). Growing human corruption is traced to the
fleshy union of angels and women (Gen. vi. 1-4). But generally evil,
whether as misfortune or as sin, is assigned to divine causality (1 Sam.
xviii. 10; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1; 1 Kings xxii. 20; Isa. vi. 10, lxiii. 17).
After the Exile there is a tendency to protect the divine transcendence
by the introduction of mediating angelic agency, and to separate all
evil from God by ascribing its origin to Satan, the enemy of God and
man. In the prophecy of Zechariah (iii. 1-2) he stands as the adversary
of Joshua, the high priest, and is rebuked by Yahweh for desiring that
Jerusalem should be further punished. In the book of Job he presents
himself before the Lord among the sons of God (ii. 1), yet he is
represented both as accuser and tempter. He disbelieves in Job's
integrity, and desires him to be so tried that he may fall into sin.
While, according to 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, God himself tests David in regard to
the numbering of the people, according to 1 Chron. xxi. 1 it is Satan
who tempts him.
The development of the conception continued in later Judaism, which was
probably more strongly influenced by Persian dualism. It is doubtful,
however, whether the Asmodeus (q.v.) of the book of Tobit is the same as
the A[=e]shma Da[=e]wa of the Bundahesh. He is the evil spirit who slew
the seven husbands of Sara (iii. 8), and the name probably means
"Destroyer." In the book of Enoch Satan is represented as the ruler of a
rival kingdom of evil, but here are also mentioned Satans, who are
distinguished from the fallen angels and who have a threefold function,
to tempt, to accuse and to punish. Satan possesses the ungodly
(Ecclesiasticus xxi. 27), is identified with the serpent of Gen. iii.
(Wisdom ii. 24), and is probably also represented by Asmodeus, to whom
lustful qualities are assigned (Tobit vi. 14); Gen. iii. is probably
referred to in Psalms of Solomon xvii. 49, "a serpent speaking with the
words of transgressors, words of deceit to pervert wisdom." The _Book of
the Secrets of Enoch_ not only identifies Satan with the Serpent, but
also describes his revolt against God, and expulsion from heaven. In the
Jewish _Targums_ Sammael, "the highest angel that stands before God's
throne, caused the serpent to seduce the woman"; he coalesces with
Satan, and has inferior Satans as his servants. The birth of Cain is
ascribed to a union of Satan with Eve. As accuser affecting man's
standing before God he is greatly feared.
This doctrine, stripped of much of its grossness, is reproduced in the
New Testament. Satan is the [Greek: diabolos] (Matt. xiii. 39; John
xiii. 2; Eph. iv. 27; Heb. ii. 14; Rev. ii. 10), slanderer or accuser,
the [Greek: peirazôn] (Matt. iv. 3; 1 Thess. iii. 5), the tempter, the
[Greek: ponêros] (Matt. v. 37; John xvii. 15; Eph. vi. 16), the evil
one, and the [Greek: echthros] (Matt. xiii. 39), the enemy. He is
apparently identified with Beelzebub (or Beelzebul) in Matt. xii. 26,
27. Jesus appears to recognize the existence of demons belonging to a
kingdom of evil under the leadership of Satan "the prince of demons"
(Matt. xii. 24, 26, 27), whose works in demonic possessions it is his
function to destroy (Mark i. 34, iii. 11, vi. 7; Luke x. 17-20). But he
himself conquers Satan in resisting his temptations (Matt. iv. 1-11).
Simon is warned against him, and Judas yields to him as tempter (Luke
xxii. 31; John xiii. 27). Jesus's cures are represented as a triumph
over Satan (Luke x. 18). This Jewish doctrine is found in Paul's letters
also. Satan rules over a world of evil, supernatural agencies, whose
dwelling is in the lower heavens (Eph. vi. 12): hence he is the "prince
of the power of the air" (ii. 2). He is the tempter (1 Thess. iii. 5; 1
Cor. vii. 5), the destroyer (x. 10), to whom the offender is to be
handed over for bodily destruction (v. 5), identified with the serpent
(Rom. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xi. 3), and probably with Beliar or Belial (vi.
15); and the surrender of man to him brought death into the world (Rom.
v. 17). Paul's own "stake in the flesh" is Satan's messenger (2 Cor.
xii. 7). According to Hebrews Satan's power over death Jesus destroys by
dying (ii. 14). Revelation describes the war in heaven between God with
his angels and Satan or the dragon, the "old serpent," the deceiver of
the whole world (xii. 9), with his hosts of darkness. After the
overthrow of the Beast and the kings of the earth, Satan is imprisoned
in the bottomless pit a thousand years (xx. 2). Again loosed to deceive
the nations, he is finally cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (xx.
10; cf. Enoch liv. 5, 6; 2 Peter ii. 4). In John's Gospel and Epistles
Satan is opposed to Christ. Sinner and murderer from the beginning (1
John iii. 8) and liar by nature (John viii. 44), he enslaves men to sin
(viii. 34), causes death (verse 44), rules the present world (xiv. 30),
but has no power over Christ or those who are his (xiv. 30, xvi. 11; 1
John v. 18). He will be destroyed by Christ with all his works (John
xvi. 33; 1 John iii. 8).
In the common faith of the Gentile churches after the Apostolic Age "the
present dominion of evil demons, or of one evil demon, was just as
generally presupposed as man's need of redemption, which was regarded as
a result of that dominion. The tenacity of this belief may be explained
among other things by the living impression of the polytheism that
surrounded the communities on every side. By means of this assumption
too, humanity seemed to be unburdened, and the presupposed capacity for
redemption could, therefore, be justified in its widest range"
(Harnack's _History of Dogma_, i. p. 181). While Christ's First Advent
delivered believers from Satan's bondage, his overthrow would be
completed only by the Second Advent. The Gnostics held that "the present
world sprang from a fall of man, or from an undertaking hostile to God,
and is, therefore, the product of an evil or intermediate being" (p.
257). Some taught that while the future had been assigned by God to
Christ, the devil had received the present age (p. 309). The fathers
traced all doctrines not held by the Catholic Church to the devil, and
the virtues of heretics were regarded as an instance of the devil
transforming himself into an angel of light (ii. 91). Irenaeus ascribes
Satan's fall to "pride and arrogance and envy of God's creation"; and
traces man's deliverance from Satan to Christ's victory in resisting his
temptations; but also, guided by certain Pauline passages, represents
the death of Christ "as a ransom paid to the 'apostasy' for men who had
fallen into captivity" (ii. 290). He does not admit that Satan has any
lawful claim on man, or that God practised a deceit on him, as later
fathers taught. This theory of the _atonement_ was formulated by Origen.
"By his successful temptation the devil acquired a right over men. God
offered Christ's soul for that of men. But the devil was duped, as
Christ overcame both him and death" (p. 367). It was held by Gregory of
Nyssa, Ambrose, who uses the phrase _pia fraus_, Augustine, Leo I., and
Gregory I., who expresses it in its worst form. "The humanity of Christ
was the bait; the fish, the devil, snapped at it, and was left hanging
on the invisible hook, Christ's divinity" (iii. 307). In Athanasius the
relation of the work of Christ to Satan retires into the background,
Gregory of Nazianzus and John of Damascus felt scruples about this view.
It is expressly repudiated by Anselm and Abelard. Peter the Lombard
asserted it, disregarding these objections. Bernard represents man's
bondage to Satan "as righteously permitted as a just retribution for
sin," he being "the executioner of the divine justice." Another theory
of Origen's found less acceptance. The devil, as a being resulting from
God's will, cannot always remain a devil. The possibility of his
redemption, however, was in the 5th century branded as a heresy. Persian
dualism was brought into contact with Christian thought in the doctrine
of Mani; and it is permissible to believe that the gloomy views of
Augustine regarding man's condition are due in some measure to this
influence. Mani taught that Satan with his demons, sprung from the
kingdom of darkness, attacked the realm of light, the earth, defeated
man sent against him by the God of light, but was overthrown by the God
of light, who then delivered the primeval man (iii. 324). "During the
middle ages," says Tulloch, "the belief in the devil was
absorbing--saints conceived themselves and others to be in constant
conflict with him." This superstition, perhaps at its strongest in the
13th to the 15th century, passed into Protestantism. Luther was always
conscious of the presence and opposition of Satan. "As I found he was
about to begin again," says Luther, "I gathered together my books, and
got into bed. Another time in the night I heard him above my cell
walking on the cloister, but as I knew it was the devil I paid no
attention to him and went to sleep." He held that this world will pass
away with its pleasures, as there can be no real improvement in it, for
the devil continues in it to ply his daring and seductive devices (vii.
191). I. A. Dorner (_Christian Doctrine_, iii. p. 93) sums up Protestant
doctrine as follows:--"He is brought into relation with natural
sinfulness, and the impulse to evil thoughts and deeds is ascribed to
him. The dominion of evil over men is also represented as a slavery to
Satan, and this as punishment. He has his full power in the
extra-Christian world. But his power is broken by Christ, and by his
word victory over him is to be won. The power of creating anything is
also denied the devil, and only the power of corrupting substances is
conceded to him. But it is only at the Last Judgment that his power is
wholly annihilated; he is himself delivered up to eternal punishment."
This belief in the devil was specially strong in Scotland among both
clergy and laity in the 17th century. "The devil was always and
literally at hand," says Buckle, "he was haunting them, speaking to
them, and tempting them. Go where they would he was there."
In more recent times a great variety of opinions has been expressed on
this subject. J. S. Semler denied the reality of demonic possession, and
held that Christ in his language accommodated himself to the views of
the sick whom he was seeking to cure. Kant regarded the devil as a
personification of the radical evil in man. Daub in his _Judas
Ishcarioth_ argued that a finite evil presupposes an absolute evil, and
the absolute evil as real must be in a person. Schelling regarded the
devil as, not a person, but a real principle, a spirit let loose by the
freedom of man. Schleiermacher was an uncompromising opponent of the
common belief. "The problem remains to seek evil rather in self than in
Satan, Satan only showing the limits of our self-knowledge." Dorner has
formulated a theory which explains the development of the conception of
Satan in the Holy Scriptures as in correspondence with an evolution in
the character of Satan. "Satan appears in Scripture under four leading
characters:--first as the tempter of freedom, who desires to bring to
decision, secondly as the accuser, who by virtue of the law retorts
criminality on man; thirdly as the instrument of the Divine, which
brings evil and death upon men; fourthly and lastly he is described,
especially in the New Testament, as the enemy of God and man." He
supposes "a change in Satan in the course of the history of the divine
revelation, in conflict with which he came step by step to be a sworn
enemy of God and man, especially in the New Testament times, in which,
on the other hand, his power is broken at the root by Christ." He argues
that "the world-order, being in process as a moral order, permits
breaches everywhere into which Satan can obtain entrance" (pp. 99, 102).
H. L. Martensen gives even freer rein to speculation. "The evil
principle," he says, "has in itself no personality, but attains a
progressively universal personality in its kingdom; it has no individual
personality, save only in individual creatures, who in an especial
manner make themselves its organs; but among these is one creature in
whom the principle is so hypostasized that he has become the centre and
head of the kingdom of evil" (_Dogmatics_, p. 199). A. Ritschl gives no
place in his constructive doctrine to the belief in the devil; but
recognizes that the mutual action of individual sinners on one another
constitutes a kingdom of sin, opposed to the Kingdom of God (A. E.
Garvie, _The Ritschlian Theology_, p. 304). Kaftan affirms that a
"doctrine about Satan can as little be established as about angels, as
faith can say nothing about it, and nothing is gained by it for the
dogmatic explanation of evil. This whole province must be left to the
immediate world-view of the pious. The idea of Satan will on account of
the Scriptures not disappear from it, and it would be arrogant to wish
to set it aside. Only let everyone keep the thought that Satan also
stands under the commission of the Almighty God, and that no one must
suppose that by leading back his sins to a Satanic temptation he can get
rid of his own guilt. To transgress these limits is to assail faith"
(_Dogmatik_, p. 348). In the book entitled _Evil and Evolution_ there is
"an attempt to turn the light of modern science on to the ancient
mystery of evil." The author contends that the existence of evil is best
explained by assuming that God is confronted with Satan, who in the
process of evolution interferes with the divine designs, an interference
which the instability of such an evolving process makes not incredible.
Satan is, however, held to be a creature who has by abuse of his freedom
been estranged from, and opposed to his Creator, and who at last will be
conquered by moral means. W. M. Alexander in his book on demonic
possession maintains that "the confession of Jesus as the Messiah or Son
of God is the classical criterion of genuine demonic possession" (p.
150), and argues that, as "the Incarnation indicated the establishment
of the kingdom of heaven upon earth," there took place "a counter
movement among the powers of darkness," of which "genuine demonic
possession was one of the manifestations" (p. 249).
Interesting as these speculations are, it may be confidently affirmed
that belief in Satan is not now generally regarded as an essential
article of the Christian faith, nor is it found to be an indispensable
element of Christian experience. On the one hand science has so
explained many of the processes of outer nature and of the inner life of
man as to leave no room for Satanic agency. On the other hand the modern
view of the inspiration of the Scriptures does not necessitate the
acceptance of the doctrine of the Scriptures on this subject as finally
and absolutely authoritative. The teaching of Jesus even in this matter
may be accounted for as either an accommodation to the views of those
with whom he was dealing, or more probably as a proof of the limitation
of knowledge which was a necessary condition of the Incarnation, for it
cannot be contended that as revealer of God and redeemer of men it was
imperative that he should either correct or confirm men's beliefs in
this respect. The possibility of the existence of evil spirits,
organized under one leader Satan to tempt man and oppose God, cannot be
denied; the sufficiency of the evidence for such evil agency may,
however, be doubted; the necessity of any such belief for Christian
thought and life cannot, therefore, be affirmed. (See also DEMONOLOGY;
POSSESSION.) (A. E. G.*)
DEVIZES, a market town and municipal borough in the Devizes
parliamentary division of Wiltshire, England, 86 m. W. by S. of London
by the Great Western railway. Pop. (1901) 6532. Its castle was built on
a tongue of land flanked by two deep ravines, and behind this the town
grew up in a semicircle on a stretch of bare and exposed tableland. Its
main streets, in which a few ancient timbered houses are left, radiate
from the market place, where stands a Gothic cross, the gift of Lord
Sidmouth in 1814. The Kennet and Avon Canal skirts the town on the N.,
passing over the high ground through a chain of thirty-nine locks. St
John's church, one of the most interesting in Wiltshire, is cruciform,
with a massive central tower, based upon two round and two pointed
arches. It was originally Norman of the 12th century, and the chancel
arch and low vaulted chancel, in this style, are very fine. In the
interior several ancient monuments of the Suttons and Heathcotes are
preserved, besides some beautiful carved stone work, and two rich
ceilings of oak over the chapels. St Mary's, a smaller church, is partly
Norman, but was rebuilt in the 15th and again in the 19th century. Its
lofty clerestoried nave has an elaborately carved timber roof, and the
south porch, though repaired in 1612, preserves its Norman mouldings.
The woollen industries of Devizes have lost their prosperity; but there
is a large grain trade, with engineering works, breweries, and
manufactures of silk, snuff, tobacco and agricultural implements. The
town is governed by a mayor, six aldermen and eighteen councillors.
Area, 906 acres.
Devizes (_Divisis_, _la Devise_, _De Vies_) does not appear in any
historical document prior to the reign of Henry I., when the
construction of a castle of exceptional magnificence by Roger, bishop of
Salisbury, at once constituted the town an important political centre,
and led to its speedy development. After the disgrace of Roger in 1139
the castle was seized by the Crown; in the 14th century it formed part
of the dowry of the queens of England, and figured prominently in
history until its capture and demolition by Cromwell in the Civil War of
the 17th century. Devizes became a borough by prescription, and the
first charter from Matilda, confirmed by successive later sovereigns,
merely grants exemption from certain tolls and the enjoyment of
undisturbed peace. Edward III. added a clause conferring on the town the
liberties of Marlborough, and Richard II. instituted a coroner. A gild
merchant was granted by Edward I., Edward II. and Edward III., and in
1614 was divided into the three companies of drapers, mercers and
leathersellers. The present governing charters were issued by James I.
and Charles I., the latter being little more than a confirmation of the
former, which instituted a common council consisting of a mayor, a town
clerk and thirty-six capital burgesses. These charters were surrendered
to Charles II., and a new one was conferred by James II., but abandoned
three years later in favour of the original grant. Devizes returned two
members to parliament from 1295, until deprived of one member by the
Representation of the People Act of 1867, and of the other by the
Redistribution Act of 1885. The woollen manufacture was the staple
industry of the town from the reign of Edward III. until the middle of
the 18th century, when complaints as to the decay of trade began to be
prevalent. In the reign of Elizabeth the market was held on Monday, and
there were two annual fairs at the feasts of the Purification of the
Virgin and the Decollation of John the Baptist. The market was
transferred to Thursday in the next reign, and the fairs in the 18th
century had become seven in number.
See _Victoria County History, Wiltshire_; _History of Devizes_ (Devizes,
1859).
DEVOLUTION, WAR OF (1667-68), the name applied to the war which arose
out of Louis XIV.'s claims to certain Spanish territories in right of
his wife Maria Theresa, upon whom the ownership was alleged to have
"devolved." (See, for the military operations, DUTCH WARS.) The war was
ended by the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1668.
DEVON, EARLS OF. From the family of De Redvers (De Ripuariis; Riviers),
who had been earls of Devon from about 1100, this title passed to Hugh
de Courtenay (c. 1275-1340), the representative of a prominent family in
the county (see Gibbon's "digression" in chap. lxi. of the _Decline and
Fall_, ed. Bury), but was subsequently forfeited by Thomas Courtenay
(1432-1462), a Lancastrian who was beheaded after the battle of Towton.
It was revived in 1485 in favour of Edward Courtenay (d. 1509), whose
son Sir William (d. 1511) married Catherine, daughter of Edward IV. Too
great proximity to the throne led to his attainder, but his son Henry
(c. 1498-1539) was restored in blood in 1517 as earl of Devon, and in
1525 was created marquess of Exeter; his second wife was a daughter of
William Blount, 4th Lord Mountjoy. The title again suffered forfeiture
on Henry's execution, but in 1553 it was recreated for his son Edward
(1526-1556). At the latter's death it became dormant in the Courtenay
family, till in 1831 a claim by a collateral branch was allowed by the
House of Lords, and the earldom of Devon was restored to the peerage,
still being held by the head of the Courtenays. The earlier earls of
Devon were referred to occasionally as earls of Devonshire, but the
former variant has prevailed, and the latter is now solely used for the
earldom and dukedom held by the Cavendishes (see DEVONSHIRE, EARLS AND
DUKES OF, and also the article COURTENAY).
DEVONIAN SYSTEM, in geology, the name applied to series of stratified
fossiliferous and igneous rocks that were formed during the Devonian
period, that is, in the interval of time between the close of the
Silurian period and the beginning of the Carboniferous; it includes the
marine Devonian and an estuarine Old Red Sandstone series of strata. The
name "Devonian" was introduced in 1829 by Sir R. Murchison and A.
Sedgwick to describe the older rocks of Cornwall and Devon which W.
Lonsdale had shown, from an examination of the fossils, to be
intermediate between the Silurian and Carboniferous. The same two
workers also carried on further researches upon the same rocks of the
continent, where already several others, F. Roemer, H. E. Beyrich, &c.,
were endeavouring to elucidate the succession of strata in this portion
of the "Transition Series." The labours of these earlier workers,
including in addition to those already mentioned, the brothers F. and G.
von Sandberger, A. Dumont, J. Gosselet, E. J. A. d'Archiac, E. P. de
Verneuil and H. von Dechen, although somewhat modified by later
students, formed the foundation upon which the modern classification of
the Devonian rocks is based.
[Illustration: Distribution of Devonian Rocks]
_Stratigraphy of the Devonian Facies._
Notwithstanding the fact that it was in Devonshire and Cornwall that
the Devonian rocks were first distinguished, it is in central Europe
that the succession of strata is most clearly made out, and here, too,
their geological position was first indicated by the founders of the
system, Sedgwick and Murchison.
_Continental Europe._--Devonian rocks occupy a large area in the
centre of Europe, extending from the Ardennes through the south of
Belgium across Rhenish Prussia to Darmstadt. They are best known from
the picturesque gorges which have been cut through them by the Rhine
below Bingen and by the Moselle below Treves. They reappear from under
younger formations in Brittany, in the Harz and Thuringia, and are
exposed in Franconia, Saxony, Silesia, North Moravia and eastern
Galicia. The principal subdivisions of the system in the more typical
areas are indicated in Table I.
This threefold subdivision, with a central mass of calcareous strata,
is traceable westwards through Belgium (where the Calcaire de Givet
represents the _Stringocephalus_ limestone of the Eifel) and eastwards
into the Harz. The rocks reappear with local petrographical
modifications, but with a remarkable persistence of general
palaeontological characters, in Eastern Thuringia, Franconia, Saxony,
Silesia, the north of Moravia and East Galicia. Devonian rocks have
been detected among the crumpled rocks of the Styrian Alps by means of
the evidence of abundant corals, cephalopods, gasteropods,
lamellibranchs and other organic remains. Perhaps in other tracts of
the Alps, as well as in the Carpathian range, similar shales,
limestones and dolomites, though as yet unfossiliferous, but
containing ores of silver, lead, mercury, zinc, cobalt and other
metals, may be referable to the Devonian system.
In the centre of Europe, therefore, the Devonian rocks consist of a
vast thickness of dark-grey sandy and shaly rocks, with occasional
seams of limestone, and in particular with one thick central
calcareous zone. These rocks are characterized in the lower zones by
numerous broad-winged spirifers and by peculiar trilobites (_Phacops_,
_Homalonotus_, &c.) which, though generically like those of the
Silurian system, are specifically distinct. The central calcareous
zone abounds in corals and crinoids as well as in numerous
brachiopods. In the highest bands a profusion of coiled cephalopods
(_Clymenia_) occurs in some of the limestones, while the shales are
crowded with a small but characteristic ostracod crustacean
(_Cypridina_). Here and there traces of fishes have been found, more
especially in the Eifel, but seldom in such a state of preservation as
to warrant their being assigned to any definite place in the
zoological scale. Subsequently, however, E. Beyrich has described from
Gerolstein in the Eifel an undoubted species of _Pterichthys_, which,
as it cannot be certainly identified with any known form, he names _P.
Rhenanus_. A _Coccosteus_ has been described by F. A. Roemer from the
Harz, and still later one has been cited from Bicken near Herborn by
V. Koenen; but, as Beyrich points out, there may be some doubt as to
whether the latter is not a _Pterichthys_. A _Ctenacanthus_, seemingly
undistinguishable from the _C. Bohemicus_ of Barrande's Étage G, has
also been obtained from the Lower Devonian "Nereitenschichten" of
Thuringia. The characteristic _Holoptychius nobilissimus_ has been
detected in the Psammite de Condroz, which in Belgium forms a
characteristic sandy portion of the Upper Devonian rocks. These are
interesting facts, as helping to link the Devonian and Old Red
Sandstone types together. But they are as yet too few and unsupported
to warrant any large deduction as to the correlations between these
types.
It is in the north-east of Europe that the Devonian and Old Red
Sandstone appear to be united into one system, where the limestones
and marine organisms of the one are interstratified with the
fish-bearing sandstones and shales of the other. In Russia, as was
shown in the great work _Russia and the Ural Mountains_ by Murchison,
De Verneuil and Keyserling, rocks intermediate between the Upper
Silurian and Carboniferous Limestone formations cover an extent of
surface larger than the British Islands. This wide development arises
not from the thickness but from the undisturbed horizontal character
of the strata. Like the Silurian formations described elsewhere, they
remain to this day nearly as flat and unaltered as they were
originally laid down. Judged by mere vertical depth, they present but
a meagre representative of the massive Devonian greywacke and
limestone of Germany, or of the Old Red Sandstone of Britain. Yet vast
though the area is over which they form the surface rock, it is
probably only a small portion of their total extent; for they are
found turned up from under the newer formations along the flank of the
Ural chain. It would thus seem that they spread continuously across
the whole breadth of Russia in Europe. Though almost everywhere
undisturbed, they afford evidence of some terrestrial oscillation
between the time of their formation and that of the Silurian rocks on
which they rest, for they are found gradually to overlap Upper and
Lower Silurian formations.