FOOTNOTES:

[1] Ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, i. 343-386; cf. Wright, _Syriac

Literature_, 196-200, and Chabot's introduction to his translation of

the fourth part of the _Chronicle_ of (pseudo) Dionysius.

[2] See the studies by Siegfried and Gelzer, _Eusebii canonum epitome

ex Dionysii Telmaharensis chronico petita_ (Leipzig, 1884), and von

Gutschmid, _Untersuchungen uber die syrische Epitome der Eusebischen

Canones_ (Stuttgart, 1886).

[3] Text and translation by J.-B. Chabot (Paris, 1895).

DIONYSIUS THRAX (so called because his father was a Thracian), the

author of the first Greek grammar, flourished about 100 B.C. He was a

native of Alexandria, where he attended the lectures of Aristarchus, and

afterwards taught rhetoric in Rhodes and Rome. His [Greek: Techne

grammatike], which we possess (though probably not in its original

form), begins with the definition of grammar and its functions. Dealing

next with accent, punctuation marks, sounds and syllables, it goes on to

the different parts of speech (eight in number) and their inflections.

No rules of syntax are given, and nothing is said about style. The

authorship of Dionysius was doubted by many of the early middle-age

commentators and grammarians, and in modern times its origin has been

attributed to the oecumenical college founded by Constantine the Great,

which continued in existence till 730. But there seems no reason for

doubt; the great grammarians of imperial times (Apollonius Dyscolus and

Herodian) were acquainted with the work in its present form, although,

as was natural considering its popularity, additions and alterations may

have been made later. The [Greek: Techne] was first edited by J. A.

Fabricius from a Hamburg MS. and published in his _Bibliotheca Graeca_,

vi. (ed. Harles). An Armenian translation, belonging to the 4th or 5th

century, containing five additional chapters, was published with the

Greek text and a French version, by M. Cirbied (1830). Dionysius also

contributed much to the criticism and elucidation of Homer, and was the

author of various other works--amongst them an account of Rhodes, and a

collection of [Greek: Meletai] (literary studies), to which the

considerable fragment in the _Stromata_ (v. 8) of Clement of Alexandria

probably belongs.

Editions, with scholia, by I. Bekker in _Anecdota Graeca_, ii. and G.

Uhlig (1884), reviewed exhaustively by P. Egenolff in Bursian's

_Jahresbericht_, vol. xlvi. (1888); Scholia, ed. A. Hilgard (1901);

see also W. Horschelmann, _De Dionysii Thracis interpretibus

veteribus_ (1874); J. E. Sandys, _Hist. of Classical Scholarship_, i.

(1906).

DIONYSUS (probably = "son of Zeus," from [Greek: Dios] and [Greek:

nysos], a Thracian word for "son"), in Greek mythology, originally a

nature god of fruitfulness and vegetation, especially of the vine;

hence, distinctively, the god of wine. The names Bacchus ([Greek:

Bakchos], in use among the Greeks from the 5th century), Sabazius, and

Bassareus, are also Thracian names of the god. The two first (like

Iacchus, Bromius and Euios) have been connected with the loud "shout"

([Greek: sabazein = bazein = euazein]) of his worshippers, Bassareus

with [Greek: bassarai], the fox-skin garments of the Thracian

Bacchanals. It has been suggested (J. E. Harrison _Prolegomena to Greek

Religion_) that Sabazius and Bromius = "beer-god," "god of a cereal

intoxicant" (cf. Illyrian _sabaia_ and modern Greek [Greek: bromi],

"oats"), while W. Ridgeway (_Classical Review_, January 1896), comparing

Apollo Smintheus, interprets Bassareus as "he who keeps away the foxes

from the vineyards" (for various interpretations of these and other

cult-titles, see O. Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie_, ii. pp. 1408,

1532, especially the notes).

In Homer, notwithstanding the frequent mention of the use of wine,

Dionysus is never mentioned as its inventor or introducer, nor does he

appear in Olympus; Hesiod is the first who calls wine the gift of

Dionysus. On the other hand, he is spoken of in the _Iliad_ (vi. 130

foll., a passage belonging to the latest period of epic), as "raging,"

an epithet that indicates that in those comparatively early times the

orgiastic character of his worship was recognized. In fact, Dionysus may

be regarded under two distinct aspects: that of a popular national Greek

god of wine and cheerfulness, and that of a foreign deity, worshipped

with ecstatic and mysterious rites introduced from Thrace. According to

the usual tradition, he was born at Thebes--originally the local centre

of his worship in Greece--and was the son of Zeus, the fertilizing rain

god, and Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, a personification of earth.

Before the child was mature, Zeus appeared to Semele at her request in

his majesty as god of lightning, by which she was killed, but the infant

was saved from the flames by Zeus (or Hermes). The epithet [Greek:

perikionios], originally referring to an ivy-crowned, pillar-shaped

fetish of the god, afterwards gave rise to the legend of a miraculous

growth of ivy "round the pillars" of the royal palace, whereby the

infant Dionysus was preserved from the flames. Zeus took him up,

enclosed him within his own thigh till he came to maturity, and then

brought him to the light, so that he was twice born; it was to celebrate

this double birth that the _dithyrambus_ (also used as an epithet of the

god) was sung (see _Etym. Mag._ s.v.). It has been suggested that this

is an allusion to the _couvade_ of certain barbarous tribes, amongst

whom it is customary, when a child is born, for the husband to take to

his bed and receive medical treatment, as if he shared the pains of

maternity (see COUVADE, and references there). Dionysus was then

conveyed by Hermes to be brought up by the nymphs of Nysa, a purely

imaginary spot, afterwards localized in different parts of the world,

which claimed the honour of having been the birthplace of the god. As

soon as Dionysus was grown up, he started on a journey through the

world, to teach the cultivation of the vine and spread his worship among

men. While so engaged he met with opposition, even in his own country,

as in the case of Pentheus, king of Thebes, who opposed the orgiastic

rites introduced by Dionysus among the women of Thebes, and, having been

discovered watching one of these ceremonies, was mistaken for some

animal of the chase, and slain by his own mother (see A. G. Bather,

_Journ. Hell. Studies_, xiv. 1894). A similar instance is that of

Lycurgus, a Thracian king, from whose attack Dionysus saved himself by

leaping into the sea, where he was kindly received by Thetis. Lycurgus

was blinded by Zeus and soon died, or became frantic and hewed down his

own son, mistaking him for a vine. At Orchomenus, the three daughters of

Minyas refused to join the other women in their nocturnal orgies, and

for this were transformed into birds (see AGRIONIA). These and similar

stories point to the vigorous resistance offered to the introduction of

the mystic rites of Dionysus, in places where an established religion

already existed. On the other hand, when the god was received hospitably

he repaid the kindness by the gift of the vine, as in the case of

Icarius of Attica (see ERIGONE).

The worship of Dionysus was actively conducted in Asia Minor,

particularly in Phrygia and Lydia. Here, as Sabazius, he was associated

with the Phrygian goddess Cybele, and was followed in his expeditions by

a _thiasos_ (retinue) of centaurs, and satyrs, with Pan and Silenus. In

Lydia his triumphant return from India was celebrated by an annual

festival on Mount Tmolus; in Lydia he assumed the long beard and long

robe which were afterwards given him in his character of the "Indian

Bacchus," the conqueror of the East, who, after the campaigns of

Alexander, was reported to have advanced as far as the Ganges. The other

incidents in which he appears in a purely triumphal character are his

transforming into dolphins the Tyrrhene pirates who attacked him, as

told in the Homeric hymn to Dionysus and represented on the monument of

Lysicrates at Athens, and his part in the war of the gods against the

giants. The former story has been connected with the sailors' custom of

hanging vine leaves, ivy and bunches of grapes round the masts of

vessels in honour of vintage festivals. The adventure with the pirates

occurred on his voyage to Naxos, where he found Ariadne abandoned by

Theseus. At Naxos Ariadne (probably a Cretan goddess akin to Aphrodite)

was associated with Dionysus as his wife, by whom he was the father of

Oenopion (wine-drinker), Staphylus (grape), and Euanthes (blooming), and

their marriage was annually celebrated by a festival. Having compelled

all the world to recognize his divinity, he descended to the underworld

to bring up his mother, who was afterwards worshipped with him under the

name of Thyone ("the raging"), he himself being called after her

Thyoneus.

Another phase in the myth of Dionysus originated in observing the decay

of vegetation in winter, to suit which he was supposed to be slain and

to join the deities of the lower world. This phase of his character was

developed by the Orphic poets, he having here the name of Zagreus ("torn

in pieces"), and being no longer the Theban god, but a son of Zeus and

Persephone. The child was brought up secretly, watched over by Curetes;

but the jealous Hera discovered where he was, and sent Titans to the

spot, who, finding him at play, tore him to pieces, and cooked and ate

his limbs, while Hera gave his heart to Zeus. The tearing in pieces is

referred by some to the torture experienced by the grape

(_Naturschmerz_) when crushed for making into wine (cf. Burns's _John

Barleycorn_); but it is better to refer it to the tearing of the flesh

of the victim at sacrifices at which the deity or the sacred animal was

slain, and sacramentally eaten raw (cf. the title [Greek: omestes] given

to Dionysus in certain places, probably pointing to human sacrifice.) To

connect this with the myth of the Theban birth of Dionysus, it is said

that Zeus gave the child's heart to Semele, or himself swallowed it and

gave birth to the new Dionysus (called Iacchus from his worshippers' cry

of rejoicing), who was cradled and swung in a winnowing fan ([Greek:

liknos]; see J. E. Harrison, _Journ. Hellenic Studies_, xxiii.), the

swinging being supposed to act as a charm in awakening vegetation from

its winter sleep. The conception of Zagreus, or the winter Dionysus,

appears to have originated in Crete, but it was accepted also in Delphi,

where his grave was shown, and sacrifice was secretly offered at it

annually on the shortest day. The story is in many respects similar to

that of Osiris. According to others, Zagreus was originally a god of the

chase, who became a hunter of men and a god of the underworld, more akin

to Hades than to Dionysus (see also TITANS).

Dionysus further possessed the prophetic gift, and his oracle at Delphi

was as important as that of Apollo. Like Hermes, Dionysus was a god of

the productiveness of nature, and hence Priapus was one of his regular

companions, while not only in the mysteries but in the rural festivals

his symbol, the phallus, was carried about ostentatiously. His symbols

from the animal kingdom were the bull (perhaps a totemistic attribute

and identified with him), the panther, the lion, the tiger, the ass, the

goat, and sometimes also the dolphin and the snake. His personal

attributes are an ivy wreath, the thyrsus (a staff with pine cone at the

end), the laurel, the pine, a drinking cup, and sometimes the horn of a

bull on his forehead. Artistically he was represented mostly either as a

youth of soft, nearly feminine form, or as a bearded and draped man, but

frequently also as an infant, with reference to his birth or to his

bringing up in "Nysa." His earliest images were of wood with the

branches still attached in parts, whence he was called Dionysus

Dendrites, an allusion to his protection of trees generally (according

to Pherecydes in C. W. Muller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._ iv. p. 637, the word

[Greek: nysa] signified "tree"). It is suggested that the cult of

Dionysus absorbed that of an old tree-spirit. He was figured also, like

Hermes, in the form of a pillar or term surmounted by his head. For the

connexion of Dionysus with Greek tragedy see DRAMA.

See Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_, v. (1910); also O. Rapp,

_Beziehungen des Dionysuskultus zu Thrakien_ (1882); O. Ribbeck,

_Anfange und Entwickelung des Dionysuskultes in Attica_ (1869); A.

Lang, _Myth, Ritual and Religion_, ii. p. 241; L. Dyer, _The Gods in

Greece_ (1891); J. E. Harrison, _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek

Religion_ (1903); J. G. Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, ii (1900), pp.

160, 291, who regards the bull and goat form of Dionysus as

expressions of his proper character as a deity of vegetation; F. A.

Voigt in Roscher's _Lexikon der Mythologie_; L. Preller, _Griechische

Mythologie_ (4th ed. by C. Robert); F. Lenormant (s.v. "Bacchus") in

Daremberg and Saglio's _Dictionnaire des antiquites_; O. Kern in

Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopadie_ (with list of cult titles); W.

Pater, _Greek Studies_ (1895); E. Rohde, _Psyche_, ii., who finds the

origin of the Hellenic belief in the immortality of the soul in the

"enthusiastic" rites of the Thracian Dionysus, which lifted persons

out of themselves, and exalted them to a fancied equality with the

gods; O. Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte_, ii.

(1907), who considers Boeotia, not Thrace, to have been the original

home of Dionysus; P. Foucart, "Le Culte de Dionysos en Attique" in

_Memoires de l'Institut national de France_, xxxvii. (1906), who finds

the prototype of Dionysus in Egypt. _The Great Dionysiak Myth_

(1877-1878) by R. Brown contains a wealth of material, but is weak in

scholarship. For a striking survival of Dionysiac rites in Thrace

(Bizye), see Dawkins, in _J.H.S._ (1906), p. 191.

DIOPHANTUS, of Alexandria, Greek algebraist, probably flourished about

the middle of the 3rd century. Not that this date rests on positive

evidence. But it seems a fair inference from a passage of Michael

Psellus (_Diophantus_, ed. P. Tannery, ii. p. 38) that he was not later

than Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea from A.D. 270, while he is not quoted

by Nicomachus (fl. c. A.D. 100), nor by Theon of Smyrna (c. A.D. 130),

nor does Greek arithmetic as represented by these authors and by

Iamblichus (end of 3rd century) show any trace of his influence, facts

which can only be accounted for by his being later than those

arithmeticians at least who would have been capable of understanding him

fully. On the other hand he is quoted by Theon of Alexandria (who

observed an eclipse at Alexandria in A.D. 365); and his work was the

subject of a commentary by Theon's daughter Hypatia (d. 415). The

_Arithmetica_, the greatest treatise on which the fame of Diophantus

rests, purports to be in thirteen Books, but none of the Greek MSS.

which have survived contain more than six (though one has the same text

in seven Books). They contain, however, a fragment of a separate tract

on _Polygonal Numbers_. The missing books were apparently lost early,

for there is no reason to suppose that the Arabs who translated or

commented on Diophantus ever had access to more of the work than we now

have. The difference in form and content suggests that the _Polygonal

Numbers_ was not part of the larger work. On the other hand the

_Porisms_, to which Diophantus makes three references ("we have it in

the Porisms that ..."), were probably not a separate book but were

embodied in the _Arithmetica_ itself, whether placed all together or, as

Tannery thinks, spread over the work in appropriate places. The

"Porisms" quoted are interesting propositions in the theory of numbers,

one of which was clearly that _the difference between two cubes can be

resolved into the sum of two cubes_. Tannery thinks that the solution of

a complete quadratic promised by Diophantus himself (I. def. 11), and

really assumed later, was one of the Porisms.

Among the great variety of problems solved are problems leading to

determinate equations of the first degree in one, two, three or four

variables, to determinate quadratic equations, and to indeterminate

equations of the first degree in one or more variables, which are,

however, transformed into determinate equations by arbitrarily

assuming a value for one of the required numbers, Diophantus being

always satisfied with a rational, even if fractional, result and not

requiring a solution in integers. But the bulk of the work consists of

problems leading to indeterminate equations of the second degree, and

these universally take the form that one or two (and never more)

linear or quadratic functions of one variable x are to be made

rational square numbers by finding a suitable value for x. A few

problems lead to indeterminate equations of the third and fourth

degrees, an easy indeterminate equation of the sixth degree being

also found. The general type of problem is to find two, three or four

numbers such that different expressions involving them in the first

and second, and sometimes the third, degree are squares, cubes, partly

squares and partly cubes, &c. E.g. _To find three numbers such that

the product of any two added to the sum of those two gives a square_

(III. 15, ed. Tannery); _To find four numbers such that, if we take

the square of their sum [+-] any one of them singly, all the resulting

numbers are squares_ (III. 22); _To find two numbers such that their

product [+-] their sum gives a cube_ (IV. 29); _To find three squares

such that their continued product added to any one of them gives a

square_ (V. 21). Book VI. contains problems of finding rational

_right-angled triangles_ such that different functions of their parts

(the sides and the area) are squares. A word is necessary on

Diophantus' notation. He has only one symbol (written somewhat like a

final sigma) for an unknown quantity, which he calls [Greek: arithmos]

(defined as "an undefined number of units"); the symbol may be a

contraction of the initial letters [alpha][rho], as [Delta]^[Upsilon],

[Kappa]^[Upsilon], [Delta]^[Upsilon][Delta], &c., are for the powers

of the unknown ([Greek: dynamis], square; [Greek: kubos], cube;

[Greek: dynamodynamis], fourth power, &c.). The only other algebraical

symbol is [graphic: /|\] for minus; plus being expressed by merely

writing terms one after another. With one symbol for an unknown, it

will easily be understood what scope there is for adroit assumptions,

for the required numbers, of expressions in the one unknown which are

at once seen to satisfy some of the conditions, leaving only one or

two to be satisfied by the particular value of x to be determined.

Often assumptions are made which lead to equations in x which cannot

be solved "rationally," i.e. would give negative, surd or imaginary

values; Diophantus then traces how each element of the equation has

arisen, and formulates the auxiliary problem of determining how the

assumptions must be corrected so as to lead to an equation (in place

of the "impossible" one) which can be solved rationally. Sometimes his

x has to do duty twice, for different unknowns, in one problem. In

general his object is to reduce the final equation to a simple one by

making such an assumption for the side of the square or cube to which

the expression in x is to be equal as will make the necessary number

of coefficients vanish. The book is valuable also for the propositions

in the theory of numbers, other than the "porisms," stated or assumed

in it. Thus Diophantus knew that _no number of the form 8n + 7 can be

the sum of three squares_. He also says that, if 2n + 1 is to be the

sum of two squares, "n must not be odd" (i.e. _no number of the form

4n + 3, or 4n - 1, can be the sum of two squares_), and goes on to

add, practically, the condition stated by Fermat, "and the double of

it [n] increased by one, when divided by the greatest square which

measures it, must not be divisible by a prime number of the form 4n -

1," except for the omission of the words "when divided ... measures

it."

# AUTHORITIES.--The first to publish anything on Diophantus in Europe

was Rafael Bombelli, who embodied in his Algebra (1572) all the

problems of Books I.-IV. and some of Book V. interspersing them with

his own problems. Next Xylander (Wilhelm Holzmann) published a Latin

translation (Basel, 1575), an altogether meritorious work, especially

having regard to the difficulties he had with the text of his MS. The

Greek text was first edited by C. G. Bachet (_Diophanti Alexandrini

arithmeticorum libri sex, et de numeris multangulis liber unus, nunc

primum graece et latine editi atque absolutissimis commentariis

illustrati_ ... Lutetiae Parisiorum ... MDCXXI.). A reprint of 1670 is

only valuable because it contains P. de Fermat's notes; as far as the

Greek text is concerned it is much inferior to the other. There are

two German translations, one by Otto Schulz (1822) and the other by G.

Wertheim (Leipzig, 1890), and an English edition in modern notation

(T. L. Heath, _Diophantos of Alexandria: A Study in the History of

Greek Algebra_ (Cambridge, 1885)). The Greek text has now been

definitively edited (with Latin translation, Scholia, &c.) by P.

Tannery (Teubner, vol. i., 1893; vol. ii., 1895). General accounts of

Diophantus' work are to be found in H. Hankel and M. Cantor's

histories of mathematics, and more elaborate analyses are those of

Nesselmann (_Die Algebra der Griechen_, Berlin, 1842) and G. Loria

(_Le Scienze esatte nell' antica Grecia_, libro v., Modena, 1902, pp.

95-158). (T. L. H.)

DIOPSIDE, an important member of the pyroxene group of rock-forming

minerals. It is a calcium-magnesium metasilicate, CaMg(SiO3)2, and

crystallizes in the monoclinic system. Usually some iron is present

replacing magnesium, and when this predominates there is a passage to

hedenbergite, CaFe(SiO3)2, a closely allied variety of monoclinic

pyroxene. These are distinguished from augite by containing little or no

aluminium. Diopside is colourless, white, pale green to dark green or

nearly black in colour, the depth of the colour depending on the amount

of iron present. The specific gravity and optical constants also vary

with the chemical composition; the sp. gr. of diopside is 3.2,

increasing to 3.6 in hedenbergite, and the angle of optical extinction

in the plane of symmetry varies between 38 deg. and 47 deg. in the two

extremes of the series. Crystals are usually prismatic in habit with a

rectangular cross-section as shown in the figure: the angle between the

prism faces m, parallel to which there are perfect cleavages, is 92 deg.

50'.

[Illustration]

Several varieties, depending on differences in structure and chemical

composition, have been distinguished, viz. coccolite (from [Greek:

kokkos], a grain), a granular variety; salite or sahlite, from Sala in

Sweden; malacolite; diallage; violane, a lamellar variety of a dark

violet-blue colour; chrome-diopside, a bright green variety containing a

small amount of chromium; and many others. Belonging to the same series

with diopside and hedenbergite is a manganese pyroxene, known as

schefierite, which has the composition (Ca, Mg) (Fe, Mn) (Si03)2.

Diopside is the characteristic pyroxene of metamorphic rocks, occurring

especially in crystalline limestones, and often in association with

garnet and epidote. It is also an essential constituent of some

pyroxene-granites, diorites and a few other igneous rocks, but the

characteristic pyroxene of this class of rocks is augite. Fine

transparent crystals of a pale green colour occur, with crystals of

yellowish-red garnet (hessonite) and chlorite, in veins traversing

serpentine in the Ala valley near Turin in Piedmont: a crystal of this

variety ("alalite") is represented in the accompanying figure. These, as

well as the long, transparent, bottle-green crystals from the Zillerthal

in the Tyrol, have occasionally been cut as gem-stones. Good crystals

have been found also at Achmatovsk near Zlatoust in the Urals,

Traversella near Ivrea in Piedmont ("traversellite"), Nordmark in

Sweden, Monroe in New York, Burgess in Lanark county, Ontario, and

several other places: at Nordmark the large, rectangular black crystals

occur with magnetite in the iron mines. (L. J. S.)

DIOPTASE, a rare mineral species consisting of acid copper

orthosilicate, H2CuSiO4, crystallizing in the parallel-faced hemihedral

class of the rhombohedral system. The degree of symmetry is the same as

in the mineral phenacite, there being only an axis of triad symmetry and

a centre of symmetry. The crystals have the form of a hexagonal prism m

terminated by a rhombohedron r, the alternate edges between these being

sometimes replaced by the faces of a rhombohedron s. The faces are

striated parallel to the edges between r, s and m. There are perfect

cleavages parallel to the faces of a rhombohedron which truncate the

polar edges of r: from the cleavage cracks internal reflections are

often to be seen in the crystal, and it was on account of this that the

mineral was named dioptase, by R. J. Hauy in 1797, from [Greek:

diopteuein], "to see into." The crystals vary from transparent to

translucent with a vitreous lustre, and are bright emerald-green in

colour; they thus have a certain resemblance to emerald, hence the early

name emerald-copper (German, _Kupfer-Smaragd_). Hardness 5; sp. gr. 3.3.

The mineral is decomposed by hydrochloric acid with separation of

gelatinous silica. At a red heat it blackens and gives off water. The

fine crystals from Mount Altyn-Tube on the western slopes of the Altai

Mountains in the Kirghiz Steppes, Asiatic Russia, line cavities in a

compact limestone; they were first sent to Europe in 1785 by Achir

Mahmed, a Bucharian merchant, after whom the mineral has been named

archirite. More recently, in 1890, good crystals of similar habit, but

rather darker in colour, have been found with quartz and malachite near

Komba in the French Congo. As drusy crystalline crusts it has been found

at Copiapo in Chile and in Arizona.

[Illustration]

Dioptase has occasionally been used as a gem-stone, especially in Russia

and Persia; it has a fine colour, but a low degree of hardness and the

transparency is imperfect. (L. J. S.)

DIORITE (from the Gr. [Greek: diorizein] to distinguish, from [Greek:

dia] through, [Greek: oros], a boundary), in petrology, the name given

by Hauy to a family of rocks of granitic texture, composed of

plagioclase felspar and hornblende. As they are richer in the dark

coloured ferromagnesian minerals they are usually grey or dark grey,

and have a higher specific gravity than granite. They also rarely show

visible quartz. But there are diorites of many kinds, as the name

applies rather to a family of rocks than to a single species. Some

contain biotite, others augite or hypersthene; many have a small amount

of quartz. Orthoclase is rarely entirely absent, and when it is fairly

common the rock becomes a tonalite; in this way a transition is

furnished between diorites and granites. It is rare to find the pure

types of "hornblende-diorite," "augite-diorite," &c., but in most cases

the rocks contain two or more ferromagnesian silicates, and such

combinations as "hornblende-biotite-diorite" are commonest in nature.

The felspar of the diorites ranges in composition from oligoclase to

labradorite, and is often remarkably zonal, the external layers being

more alkaline than the internal. Small fluid enclosures and black

grains, probably iron oxides, often occur in it in great numbers.

Weathering produces epidote, calcite, sericite and kaolin. The biotite

is always brown or yellow; the hornblende usually green, but sometimes

brown or yellowish brown in those diorites which have affinities to

lamprophyres. The augite is nearly always green but sometimes has a

reddish tinge; bronzite and hypersthene have their usual green and brown

shades. Apatite, iron oxides and zircon are almost invariably present;

sphene, garnet and orthite are occasionally observed; calcite, chlorite,

muscovite, kaolin, epidote and bastite are secondary. The structure is

not essentially different from that of granite. The ferromagnesian

minerals crystallize comparatively early and have some idiomorphism; the

felspar usually follows and only in part shows good crystalline

outlines. Orthoclase and quartz, if present, are last to separate out,

and fill the spaces between the other minerals; often they

interpenetrate to form micropegmatite. In many diorites the plagioclase

felspar has crystallized before the hornblende, which consequently has

less perfect outlines and forms irregular plates which enclose sharply

formed individuals of felspar. This produces the ophitic structure (very

common also in the dolerites). More rarely biotite and augite exhibit

the same relations to the plagioclase. Orbicular structure also

occasionally appears in these rocks; in fact the orbicular diorite of

Corsica (also called "Napoleonite" or "Corsite") was for a long time the

best-known example of this structure. The rock seems composed of

spheroids, about an inch in diameter, surrounded by a smaller amount of

dark-coloured dioritic matrix. The spheroids have a radiate structure

and often show concentric dark and pale shells. These consist of

hornblende (dark green) and basic plagioclase felspar, labradorite and

bytownite (grey or nearly white). Occasionally diorites have a parallel

banded or foliated structure, but these must not be confounded with the

epidiorites, which are metamorphic rocks and also have a conspicuous

foliation.

Diorites must also be distinguished from hornblendic gabbros, which

contain more basic felspars, rarely quartz and occasionally olivine; but

the boundary lines between diorites and gabbros are admittedly somewhat

vague, e.g. some authors would call rocks gabbro which others would

regard as augite-diorite. The hornblendites differ from the diorites in

containing little felspar, and consist principally of hornblende. Among

varietal designations given to rocks of the diorite family are

"banatite" for an augite-diorite with or without quartz (from the

Schemnitz district), "granodiorite" for a quartz-hornblende-diorite

(essentially the same as tonalite) from California, &c., "adamellite"

for the quartz-mica-diorite or tonalite of Monte Adamello (Alps),

"ornite" for a hornblende-diorite rich in felspar, from Sweden.

(J. S. F.)

DIP (Old Eng. _dyppan_, connected with the common Teutonic root seen in

"deep"), the angle which the magnetic needle makes with the horizon. A

freely suspended magnetic needle will not maintain a horizontal position

except at the magnetic equator. Over the N. magnetic pole the

north-seeking end of the needle points directly downwards and dips at an

intermediate angle at intermediate distances between the magnetic poles

and equator. There are secular progressive variations of dip as well as

of declination and the maxima are independent of each other. In 1576

the dip at London was 71 deg. 50', in 1720 (max.) 74 deg. 42', in 1900

67 deg. 9'. (For Dip Circle see INCLINOMETER.)

DIPHENYL (phenyl benzene), C6H5.C6H5, a hydrocarbon found in that

fraction of the coal-tar distillate boiling between 240-300 deg. C.,

from which it may be obtained by warming with sulphuric acid, separating

the acid layer and strongly cooling the undissolved oil. It may be

artificially prepared by passing benzene vapour through a red-hot tube;

by the action of sodium on brombenzene dissolved in ether; by the action

of stannous chloride on phenyldiazonium chloride; or by the addition of

solid phenyldiazonium sulphate to warm benzene (R. Mohlau, _Berichte,

1893, 26_, 1997) C6H5N2.HSO4 + C6H6 = H2SO4 + N2 + C6H5.C6H5. L.

Gattermann (_Berichte, 1890, 23_, 1226) has also prepared it by the

decomposition of a solution of phenyldiazonium sulphate with alcohol and

copper powder. It crystallizes in plates (from alcohol) melting at 70-71

deg. C. and boiling at 254 deg. C. It is oxidized by chromic acid in

glacial acetic acid solution to benzoic acid, dilute nitric acid and

chromic acid mixture being without effect. It is not reduced by

hydriodic acid and phosphorus, but sodium in the presence of amyl

alcohol reduces it to tetrahydrodiphenyl C12H14.

Many substitution derivatives are known: the monosubstitution

derivatives being capable of existing in three isomeric forms. Of the

disubstitution derivatives the most important are those derived from

diparadiaminodiphenyl or benzidine (q.v.).

_Orthoaminodiphenyl_,

NH2

__ |__

/ \__/ \ ,

\__/ \__/

is prepared by the action of bromine and caustic soda on

orthophenylbenzamide (R. Hirsch, _Berichte, 1892, 25_, 1974); when its

vapour is passed over heated lime, carbazol (q.v.) is formed.

_Diorthodiaminodiphenyl_,

NH2 NH2

__| |__

/ \__/ \ ,

\__/ \__/

is obtained by the reduction of the corresponding nitro compound

(obtained by the action of ethyl nitrite at 0 deg. C. on

metadinitrobenzidine hydrochloride). Its tetrazo compound on reduction

gives a hydrazine which, on warming with hydrochloric acid at 150 deg.

C., decomposes into ammonium chloride and _phenazone_,

N = N

__| |__

/ \___/ \

\__/ \__/

(C12H8N2). One of the most important derivatives of diphenyl, from the

theoretical point of view, is _diphenic acid_ or diorthodiphenyl

carboxylic acid, which can be obtained from

diparadiaminodiphenyldiorthocarboxylic acid,

__ __

H2N / \__/ \ NH2 ,

\__/ \__/

| |

HOOC COOH

or from phenanthrene (q.v.), the constitution of which it determines.

See BENZIDINE for diparadiaminodiphenyl.

DIPHILUS, of Sinope, poet of the new Attic comedy and contemporary of

Menander (342-291 B.C.). Most of his plays were written and acted at

Athens, but he led a wandering life, and died at Smyrna. He was on

intimate terms with the famous courtesan Gnathaena (Athenaeus xiii. pp.

579, 583). He is said to have written 100 comedies, the titles of fifty

of which are preserved. He sometimes acted himself. To judge from the

imitations of Plautus. (_Casina_ from the [Greek: Kleroumenoi],

_Asinaria_ from the [Greek: Onagos], _Rudens_ from some other play), he

was very skilful in the construction of his plots. Terence also tells us

that he introduced into the _Adelphi_ (ii. 1) a scene from the [Greek:

Synapothneskontes], which had been omitted by Plautus in his adaptation

(_Commorientes_) of the same play. The style of Diphilus was simple and

natural, and his language on the whole good Attic; he paid great

attention to versification, and was supposed to have invented a peculiar

kind of metre. The ancients were undecided whether to class him among

the writers of the New or Middle comedy. In his fondness for

mythological subjects (_Hercules_, _Theseus_) and his introduction on

the stage (by a bold anachronism) of the poets Archilochus and Hipponax

as rivals of Sappho, he approximates to the spirit of the latter.

Fragments in H. Koch, _Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta_, ii.; see J.

Denis, _La Comedie grecque_ (1886), ii. p. 414; R. W. Bond in

_Classical Review_ (Feb. 1910, with trans. of _Emporos_ fragm.).

DIPHTHERIA (from [Greek: diphthera], a skin or membrane), the term

applied to an acute infectious disease, which is accompanied by a

membranous exudation on a mucous surface, generally on the tonsils and

back of the throat or pharynx.

In general the symptoms at the commencement of an attack of diphtheria

are comparatively slight, being those commonly accompanying a cold, viz.

chilliness and depression. Sometimes more severe phenomena usher in the

attack, such as vomiting and diarrhoea. A slight feeling of uneasiness

in the throat is experienced along with some stiffness of the back of

the neck. When looked at the throat appears reddened and somewhat

swollen, particularly in the neighbourhood of the tonsils, the soft

palate and upper part of pharynx, while along with this there is

tenderness and swelling of the glands at the angles of the jaws. The

affection of the throat spreads rapidly, and soon the characteristic

exudation appears on the inflamed surface in the form of greyish-white

specks or patches, increasing in extent and thickness until a

yellowish-looking false membrane is formed. This deposit is firmly

adherent to the mucous membrane beneath or incorporated with it, and if

removed leaves a raw, bleeding, ulcerated surface, upon which it is

reproduced in a short period. The appearance of the exudation has been

compared to wet parchment or washed leather, and it is more or less

dense in texture. It may cover the whole of the back of the throat, the

cavity of the mouth, and the posterior nares, and spread downwards into

the air-passages on the one hand and into the alimentary canal on the

other, while any wound on the surface of the body is liable to become

covered with it. This membrane is apt to be detached spontaneously, and

as it loosens it becomes decomposed, giving a most offensive and

characteristic odour to the breath. There is pain and difficulty in

swallowing, but unless the disease has affected the larynx no affection

of the breathing. The voice acquires a snuffling character. When the

disease invades the posterior nares an acrid, fetid discharge, and

sometimes also copious bleeding, takes place from the nostrils. Along

with these local phenomena there is evidence of constitutional

disturbance of the most severe character. There may be no great amount

of fever, but there is marked depression and loss of strength. The pulse

becomes small and frequent, the countenance pale, the swelling of the

glands of the neck increases, which, along with the presence of albumen

in the urine, testifies to a condition of blood poisoning. Unless

favourable symptoms emerge death takes place within three or four days

or sooner, either from the rapid extension of the false membrane into

the air-passage, giving rise to asphyxia, or from a condition of general

collapse, which is sometimes remarkably sudden. In cases of recovery the

change for the better is marked by an arrest in the extension of the

false membrane, the detachment and expectoration of that already formed,

and the healing of the ulcerated mucous membrane beneath. Along with

this there is a general improvement in the symptoms, the power of

swallowing returns, and the strength gradually increases, while the

glandular enlargement of the neck diminishes, and the albumen disappears

from the urine. Recovery, however, is generally slow, and it is many

weeks before full convalescence is established. Even, however, where

diphtheria ends thus favourably, the peculiar sequelae already mentioned

are apt to follow, generally within a period of two or three weeks after

all the local evidence of the disease has disappeared. These secondary

affections may occur after mild as well as after severe attacks, and

they are principally in the form of paralysis affecting the soft palate

and pharynx, causing difficulty in swallowing with regurgitation of food

through the nose, and giving a peculiar nasal character to the voice.

There are, however, other forms of paralysis occurring after diphtheria,

especially that affecting the muscles of the eye, which produces a loss

of the power of accommodation and consequent impairment of vision. There

may be, besides, paralysis of both legs, and occasionally also of one

side of the body (hemiplegia). These symptoms, however, after continuing

for a variable length of time, almost always ultimately disappear.

Under the name of the _Malum Egyptiacum_, Aretaeus in the 2nd century

gives a minute description of a disease which in all its essential

characteristics corresponds to diphtheria. In the 16th, 17th and 18th

centuries epidemics of diphtheria appear to have frequently prevailed

in many parts of Europe, particularly in Holland, Spain, Italy, France,

as well as in England, and were described by physicians belonging to

those countries under various titles; but it is probable that other

diseases of a similar nature were included in their descriptions, and no

accurate account of this affection had been published till M. Bretonneau

of Tours in 1821 laid his celebrated treatise on the subject before the

French Academy of Medicine. By him the term _La Diphtherite_ was first

given to the disease.

Great attention has been paid to diphtheria in recent years, with some

striking results. Its cause and nature have been definitely ascertained,

the conditions which influence its prevalence have been elucidated, and

a specific "cure" has been found. In the last respect it occupies a

unique position at the present time. In the case of several other

zymotic diseases much has been done by way of prevention, little or

nothing for treatment; in the case of diphtheria prevention has failed,

but treatment has been revolutionized by the introduction of antitoxin,

which constitutes the most important contribution to practical medicine

as yet made by bacteriology.

Causation.

The exciting cause of diphtheria is a micro-organism, identified by

Klebs and Loffler in 1883 (see PARASITIC DISEASES). It has been shown by

experiment that the symptoms of diphtheria, including the after-effects,

are produced by a toxin derived from the micro-organisms which lodge in

the air-passages and multiply in a susceptible subject. The natural

history of the organism outside the body is not well understood, but

there is some reason to believe that it lives in a dormant condition in

suitable soils. Recent research does not favour the theory that it is

derived from defective drains or "sewer gas," but these things, like

damp and want of sunlight, probably promote its spread, by lowering the

health of persons exposed to them, and particularly by causing an

unhealthy condition of the throat, rendering it susceptible to the

contagion. Defective drainage, or want of drainage, may also act, by

polluting the ground, and so providing a favourable soil for the germ,

though it is to be noted that "the steady increase in the diphtheria

mortality has coincided, in point of time, with steady improvement in

regard of such sanitary circumstances as water supply, sewerage, and

drainage" (Thorne Thorne). Cats and cows are susceptible to the

diphtheritic bacillus, and fowls, turkeys and other birds have been

known to suffer from a disease like diphtheria, but other domestic

animals appear to be more or less resistant or immune. In human beings

the mere presence of the germ is not sufficient to cause disease; there

must also be susceptibility, but it is not known in what that consists.

Individuals exhibit all degrees of resistance up to complete immunity.

Children are far more susceptible than adults, but even children may

have the Klebs-Loffler bacillus in their throats without showing any

symptoms of illness. Altogether there are many obscure points about this

micro-organism, which is apt to assume a puzzling variety of forms.

Nevertheless its identification has greatly facilitated the diagnosis of

the disease, which was previously a very difficult matter, often

determined in an arbitrary fashion on no particular principles.

Diphtheria, as at present understood, may be defined as sore throat in

which the bacillus is found; if it cannot be found, the illness is

regarded as something else, unless the clinical symptoms are quite

unmistakable. One result of this is a large transference of registered

mortality from other throat affections, and particularly from croup, to

diphtheria. Croup, which never had a well-defined application, and is

not recognized by the College of Physicians as a synonym for diphtheria,

appears to be dying out from the medical vocabulary in Great Britain. In

France the distinction has never been recognized.

Prevalence.

Diphtheria is endemic in all European and American countries, and is

apparently increasing, but the incidence varies greatly. It is far more

prevalent on the continent than in England, and still more so in the

United States and Canada. The following table, compiled from figures

collected by Dr Newsholme, shows how London compares with some foreign

cities. The figures give the mean death-rate from diphtheria and croup

for the term of years during which records have been kept. The period

varies in different cases, and therefore the comparison is only a rough

one.

_Mean Death-Rates from Diphtheria and Croup per Million living._

New York 1610 | Munich 990

Chicago 1400 | Milan 990

Buenos Aires 1360 | Florence 830

Trieste 1300 | Vienna 770

Dresden 1290 | Stockholm 720

Berlin 1190 | St Petersburg 650

Boston 1160 | Moscow 640

Marseilles 1130 | Paris 630

Christiania 1090 | Hamburg 490

Budapest 1880 | London 386

There is comparatively little diphtheria in India and Japan, but in

Egypt, the Cape and Australasia it prevails very extensively among the

urban populations. The mortality varies greatly from year to year in all

countries and cities. In Berlin, for instance, it has oscillated between

a maximum of 2420 in 1883 and a minimum of 340 in 1896; in New York

between 2760 in 1877 and 680 in 1868; in Christiania between 3290 in

1887 and 170 in 1871. In some American cities still higher maxima have

been recorded. In other words, diphtheria, though always endemic,

exhibits at times a great increase of activity, and becomes epidemic or

even pandemic. The following table for 1859-99 shows fairly well the

periodical rise and fall in England and Wales. Diphtheria and croup are

given both separately and together, showing the increasing transference

from one to the other of late years. Diphtheria was first entered

separately in the year 1859.

_Deaths from Diphtheria and Croup per Million living in

England and Wales._

+---------------+-------------+----------+-------------+

| Years. | Diphtheria. | Croup. | Diphtheria |

| | | | and Croup. |

+---------------+-------------+----------+-------------+

| 1859 | 517 | 286 | 803 |

| 1860 | 261 | 220 | 481 |

| 1861-70 | 185 | 246 | 431 |

| 1871-80 | 121 | 168 | 289 |

| 1881-90 | 163 | 144 | 307 |

| 1891-95 | 254 | 70 | 324 |

| 1896-97 | 269 | 43 | 312 |

| 1898 | 244 | 27 | 271 |

| 1899 | 293 | 32 | 325 |

+---------------+-------------+----------+-------------+

The combined figures for diphtheria and croup in later years

are:--(1900) 316; (1901) 296; (1902) 255; (1903) 195; (1904) 184;

(1905) 174; (1906) 190; (1907) 175; (1908) 166.

Several facts are roughly indicated by the table. It begins with an

extremely severe epidemic, which has not been approached since. Then

follows a fall extending over twenty years. On the whole this diminution

was progressive, though not in reality so steady as the decennial

grouping makes it appear, being interrupted by smaller oscillations in

single years and groups of years. Still the main fact holds good. After

1880 an opposite movement began, likewise interrupted by minor

oscillations, but on the whole progressive, and culminating in the year

1893 with a death-rate of 389, the highest recorded since 1865. After

1896 a marked fall again took place. This is partly accounted for by the

use of antitoxin, which only began on a considerable scale in 1895, and

did not become general until a year or two later at least. Its effects

were only then fully felt. The registrar-general's returns record

mortality, not prevalence--that is to say, the number of deaths, not of

cases.

On the whole, we get clear evidence of an epidemic rise and fall, which

may serve to dispose of some erroneous conceptions. The belief, held

until recently, that diphtheria is steadily increasing in Great Britain

was obviously premature; it did rise over a series of years, but has now

ebbed again. Moreover, the general prevalence during the last thirty

years has been notably less than in the previous twelve years. Yet it is

during years since 1870 that compulsory education has been in existence

and main drainage chiefly carried out. It follows that neither school

attendance nor sewer gas exercises such an important influence over the

epidemicity of diphtheria as some other conditions. What are those

conditions? Dr Newsholme has advanced the theory, based on an elaborate

examination of statistics in various countries, that the activity of

diphtheria is connected with the rainfall, and he lays down the

following general induction from the facts: "Diphtheria only becomes

epidemic in years in which the rainfall is deficient, and the epidemics

are on the largest scale when three or more years of deficient rainfall

follow each other." He points out that the comparative rarity of

diphtheria in tropical climates, which are characterized by excessive

rainfall, and its greater prevalence in continental than in insular

countries, confirm his theory. His observations seem quite contrary to

the view laid down by various authorities, and hitherto accepted, that

wet weather favours diphtheria. The two, however, are not

irreconcilable. The key to the problem--and possibly to many other

epidemiological problems--may perhaps be found in the movements of the

subsoil water. It has been suggested by different observers, and

particularly by Mr M. A. Adams, who has for some years made a study of

the subsoil water at Maidstone, that there is a definite connexion

between it and diphtheria. In England the underground water normally

reaches its lowest level at the end of the summer; then it gradually

rises, fed by percolation from the winter rains, reaching a maximum

level about the end of March, after which it gradually sinks. This

maximum level Mr Adams calls the annual spring cleaning of the soil, and

his observations go to show that when the normal movement is arrested or

disturbed, diphtheria becomes active. Now that is what happens in

periods of drought. The underground water does not rise to its usual

level, and there is no spring cleaning. The hypothesis, then, is this:

The diphtheria bacillus lives in the soil, but is "drowned out" in wet

periods by the subsoil water. In droughty ones it lives and flourishes

in the warm, dry soil; then when rain comes, it is driven out with the

ground air into the houses. This process will continue for some time, so

that epidemic outbreaks may well seem to be associated with wet. But

they begin in drought, and are stopped by long-continued periods of

copious rainfall. This is quite in keeping with the observed fact that

diphtheria is a seasonal disease, always most prevalent in the last

quarter of the year. The summer develops the poison in the soil, the

autumnal rains bring it out. The fact that the same cause does not

produce the same effect in tropical countries may perhaps be explained

by the extreme violence of the alternations, which are too great to suit

this particular micro-organism, or possibly the regularity of the

rainfall prevents its development.

The foregoing hypothesis is supported by a good deal of evidence, and

notably by the concurrence of the great epidemic or pandemic prevalence

in Great Britain, culminating in 1859, with a prolonged period of

exceptionally deficient rainfall. Again, the highest death-rate

registered since 1865 was in 1893, a year of similarly exceptional

drought. But it is no more than an hypothesis, and the fate of former

theories is a warning against drawing conclusions from statistics and

records extending over too short a period of time. The warning is

particularly necessary in connexion with meteorological conditions,

which are apt to upset all calculations. As it happens, a period of

deficient rainfall even greater than that of 1854-1858 has recently been

experienced. It began in 1893 and culminated in the extraordinary season

of 1899. The dry years were 1893, 1895, 1896, 1898 and 1899, and the

deficiency of rainfall was not made good by any considerable excess in

1894 and 1897. It surpassed all records at Greenwich; streams and wells

ran dry all over the country, and the flow of the Thames and Lea was

reduced to the lowest point ever recorded. There should be, according to

the theory, at least a very large increase in the prevalence of

diphtheria. To a certain extent it has held good. There was a marked

rise in 1893-1896 over the preceding period, though not so large as

might have been expected, but it was followed by a decided fall in

1897-1898. The experience of 1898 contradicts, that of 1899 supports,

the theory. Further light is therefore required; but perhaps the failure

of the recent drought to produce results at all comparable with the

epidemic of the 'fifties may be due to variations in the resistance of

the disease, which differs widely in different years. It may also be due

in part to improved sanitation, to the notification of infectious

diseases, the use of isolation hospitals, which have greatly developed

in quite recent years, and, lastly, to the beneficial effects of

antitoxin. If these be the real explanations, then scientific and

administrative work has not been thrown away after all in combating this

very painful and fatal enemy of the young.

Dissemination.

The conditions governing the general prevalence of diphtheria, and its

epidemic rise and fall, which have just been discussed, do not touch the

question of actual dissemination. The contagion is spread by means which

are in constant operation, whether the general amount of disease is

great or small. Water, so important in some epidemic diseases, is

believed not to be one of them, though a negative proof based on absence

of evidence cannot be accepted as conclusive. On the other hand, milk is

undoubtedly a means of dissemination. Several outbreaks of an almost

explosive character, besides minor extensions of disease from one place

to another, have been traced to this cause. Milk may be contaminated in

various ways--at the dairy, for instance, or on the way to

customers,--but several cases, investigated by the officers of the Local

Government Board and others, have been thought to point to infection

from cows suffering from a diphtheritic affection of the udder. The part

played by aerial convection is undetermined, but there is no reason to

suppose that the infecting material is conveyed any distance by wind or

air currents. Instances which seem to point to the contrary may be

explained in other ways, and particularly by the fact, now fully

demonstrated, that persons suffering from minor sore throats, not

recognized as diphtheria, may carry the disease about and introduce it

into other localities. Human intercourse is the most important means of

dissemination, the contagion passing from person to person either by

actual contact, as in kissing, or by the use of the same utensils and

articles, or by mere proximity. In the last case the germs must be

supposed to be air-borne for short distances, and to enter with the

breath. Rooms appear liable to become infected by the presence of

diphtheritic cases, and so spread the disease among other persons using

them. At a small outbreak which occurred at Darenth Asylum in 1898 the

infection clung obstinately to a particular ward, in spite of the prompt

removal of all cases, and fresh ones continued to occur until it had

been thoroughly disinfected, after which there were no more. The part

played by human intercourse in fostering the spread of the disease

suggests that it would naturally be more prevalent in urban communities,

where people congregate together more, than in rural ones. This is at

variance with the conclusion laid down by some authorities, that in this

country diphtheria used to affect chiefly the sparsely populated

districts, and though tending to become more urban, is still rather a

rural disease. That view is based upon an analysis of the distribution

by counties in England and Wales from 1855 to 1880, and it has been

generally accepted and repeated until it has become a sort of axiom. Of

course the facts of distribution are facts, but the general inference

drawn from them, that diphtheria peculiarly affects the country and is

changing its _habitat_, may be erroneous. Dr Newsholme, by taking a

wider basis of experience, has arrived at the opposite conclusion, and

finds that diphtheria does not, in fact, flourish more in

sparsely-peopled districts. "When a sufficiently long series of years is

taken," he says, "it appears clear that there is more diphtheria in

urban than in rural communities." The rate for London has always been in

excess of that for the whole of England and Wales. Its distribution at

any given time is determined by a number of circumstances, and by their

incidental co-operation, not by any property or predilection for town or

country inherent in the disease. There are the epidemic conditions of

soil and rainfall, previously discussed, which vary widely in different

localities at different times; there is the steady influence of regular

intercourse, and the accidental element of special distribution by

various means. These things may combine to alter the incidence. In

short, accident plays too great a part to permit any general conclusion

to be drawn from distribution, except from a very wide basis of

experience. The variations are very great and sometimes very sudden. For

instance, the county of London for some years headed the list, having a

far higher death-rate than any other. In 1898 it dropped to the fifth

place, and was surpassed by Rutland, a purely rural county, which had

the lowest mortality of all in the previous year and very nearly the

lowest for the previous ten years. Again, South Wales, which had had a

low mortality for some years, suddenly came into prominence as a

diphtheria district, and in 1898 had the highest death-rate in the

country. Staffordshire and Bedfordshire show a similar rise, the one an

urban, the other a rural, county. All the northern counties, both rural

and urban,--namely, Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland, Westmorland,

Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire and Lincolnshire,--had a very high rate

in 1861-1870, and a low one in 1896-1898. It is obviously unsafe to draw

general conclusions from distribution data on a small scale. Diphtheria

appears to creep about very slowly, as a rule, from place to place, and

from one part of a large town to another; it forsakes one district and

appears in another; occasionally it attacks a fresh locality with great

energy, presumably because the local conditions are exceptionally

favourable, which may be due to the soil or, possibly, to the

susceptibility of the inhabitants, who are, so to speak, virgin ground.

But through it all personal infection is the chief means of spread.

The acceptance of this doctrine has directed great attention to the

practical question of school influence. There is no doubt whatever that

it plays a very considerable part in spreading diphtheria. The incidence

of the disease is chiefly on children, and nothing so often and

regularly brings large numbers together in close contact under the same

roof as school attendance. Nothing, in fact, furnishes such constant and

extensive opportunities for personal infection. Many outbreaks have

definitely been traced to schools. In London the subject has been very

fully investigated by Sir Shirley Murphy, the medical officer of health

to the London County Council, and by Dr W. R. Smith, formerly medical

officer of health to the London School Board. Sir Shirley Murphy has

shown that a special incidence on children of school age began to

manifest itself after the adoption of compulsory education, and that the

summer holidays are marked by a distinct diminution of cases, which is

succeeded by an increase on the return to school. Dr W. R. Smith's

observations are directed rather to minimizing the effect of school

influence, and to showing that it is less important than other factors;

which is doubtless true, as has been already remarked. It appears that

the heaviest incidence falls upon infants under school age, and that

liability diminishes progressively after school age is reached. But this

by no means disposes of the importance of school influence, as the

younger children at home may be infected by older ones, who have picked

up the contagion at school, but, being less susceptible, are less

severely affected and exhibit no worse symptoms than a sore throat. From

a practical point of view the problem is a difficult one to deal with,

as it is virtually impossible to ensure the exclusion of all infection,

on account of the deceptively mild forms it may assume; but considering

how very often outbreaks of diphtheria necessitate the closing of

schools, it would probably be to the advantage of the authorities to

discourage, rather than to compel, the attendance of children with sore

throats. A fact of some interest revealed by statistics is that in the

earliest years of life the incidence of diphtheria is greater upon male

than upon female children, but from three years onwards the position is

reversed, and with every succeeding year the relative female liability

becomes greater. This is probably due to the habit of kissing maintained

among females, but more and more abandoned by boys from babyhood

onwards.

All these considerations suggest the importance of segregating the sick

in isolation hospitals. Of late years this preventive measure has been

carried out with increasing efficiency, owing to the better provision of

such hospitals and the greater willingness of the public to make use of

them; and probably the improvement so effected has had some share in

keeping down the prevalence of the disease to comparatively moderate

proportions. Unfortunately, the complete segregation of infected persons

is hardly possible, because of the mild symptoms, and even absence of

symptoms, exhibited by some individuals. A further difficulty arises

with reference to the discharge of patients. It has been proved that

the bacillus may persist almost indefinitely in the air-passages in

certain cases, and in a considerable proportion it does persist for

several weeks after convalescence. On returning home such cases may, and

often do, infect others.

Treatment.

Since the antitoxin treatment was introduced in 1894 it has overshadowed

all other methods. We owe this drug originally to the Berlin school of

bacteriologists, and particularly to Dr Behring. The idea of making use

of serum arose about 1890, out of researches made in connexion with

Mechnikov's theory of phagocytosis, by which is meant the action of the

phagocytes or white corpuscles of the blood in destroying the bacteria

of disease. It was shown by the German bacteriologists that the serum or

liquid part of the blood plays an equally or more important part in

resisting disease, and the idea of combating the toxins produced by

pathogenic bacteria with resistant serum injected into the blood

presented itself to several workers. The idea was followed up and worked

out independently in France and Germany, so successfully that by the

year 1894 the serum treatment had been tried on a considerable scale

with most encouraging results. Some of these were published in Germany

in the earlier part of that year, and at the International Hygienic

Congress, held in Budapest a little later, Dr Roux, of the Institut

Pasteur, whose experience was somewhat more extensive than that of his

German colleagues, read a paper giving the result of several hundred

cases treated in Paris. When all allowance for errors had been made,

they showed a remarkable and even astonishing reduction of mortality,

fully confirming the conclusions drawn from the German experiments. This

consensus of independent opinion proved a great stimulus to further

trial, and before long one _clinique_ after another told the same tale.

The evidence was so favourable that Professor Virchow--the last man to

be carried away by a novelty--declared it "the imperative duty of

medical men to use the new remedy" (_The Times_, 19th October 1894).

Since then an enormous mass of facts has accumulated from all quarters

of the globe, all testifying to the value of antitoxin in the treatment

of diphtheria. The experience of the hospitals of the London

Metropolitan Asylums Board for five years before and after antitoxin may

be given as a particularly instructive illustration; but the subsequent

reduction in the rate of mortality (12 in 1900, 11.3 in 1901, 10.8 in

1902, 9.3 in 1903, and an average of 9 in 1904-1908) added further

confirmation.

_Annual Case Mortality in Metropolitan Asylums Board's

Hospitals._

Before Antitoxin. | After Antitoxin.

Mortality | Mortality

Year. per cent. | Year. per cent.

|

1890 33.55 | 1895 22.85

1891 30.61 | 1896 21.20

1892 29.51 | 1897 17.79

1893 30.42 | 1898 15.37

1894 29.29 | 1899 13.95

The number of cases dealt with in these five antitoxin years was 32,835,

or an average of 6567 a year, and the broad result is a reduction of

mortality by more than one-half. It is a fair inference that the

treatment saves the lives of about 1000 children every year in London

alone. This refers to all cases. Those which occur in the hospitals as a

sequel to scarlet fever, and consequently come under treatment from the

commencement, show very much more striking results. The case mortality,

which was 46.8% in 1892 and 58.8% in 1893, has been reduced to 3.6%

since the introduction of antitoxin. But the evidence is not from

statistics alone. The beneficial effect of the treatment is equally

attested by clinical observation. Dr Roux's original account has been

confirmed by a cloud of witnesses year after year. "One may say," he

wrote, "that the appearance of most of the patients is totally different

from what it used to be. The pale and leaden faces are scarcely seen in

the wards; the expression of the children is brighter and more lively."

Adult patients have described the relief afforded by inoculation; it

acts like a charm, and lifts the deadly feeling of oppression off like a

cloud in the course of a few hours. Finally, the counteracting effect of

antitoxin in preventing the disintegrating action of the diphtheritic

toxin on the nervous tissues has been demonstrated pathologically. There

are some who still affect scepticism as to the value of this drug. They

cannot be acquainted with the evidence, for if the efficacy of antitoxin

in the treatment of diphtheria has not been proved, then neither can the

efficacy of any treatment for anything be said to be proved.

Prophylactic properties are also claimed for the serum; but protection

is necessarily more difficult to demonstrate than cure, and though there

is some evidence to support the claim, it has not been fully made out.

AUTHORITIES.--Adams, _Public Health_, vol. vii.; Thorne Thorne,

_Milroy Lectures_ (1891); Newsholme, _Epidemic Diphtheria_; W. R.

Smith, _Harben Lectures_ (1899); Murphy, _Report to London County

Council_ (1894); Sims Woodhead, _Report to Metropolitan Asylums Board_

(1901).

DIPLODOCUS, a gigantic extinct land reptile discovered in rocks of Upper

Jurassic age in western North America, the best-known example of a

Sauropodous Dinosaur. The first scattered remains of a skeleton were

found in 1877 by Prof. S.W. Williston near Canon City, Colorado; and the

tail and hind-limb of this specimen were described in the following year

by Prof. O.C. Marsh. He noticed that in the part of the tail which

dragged on the ground, each chevron bone below the vertebral column

consisted of a pair of bars; and as so peculiar an arrangement for the

protection of the artery and vein beneath the tail had not previously

been observed in any animal, he proposed the name _Diplodocus_ ("double

beam" or "double bar") for the new reptile, adding the specific name

_longus_ in allusion to the elongated shape of the tail vertebrae. In

1884 Prof. Marsh described the head, vertebrae and pelvis of the same

skeleton, which is now in the National Museum, Washington. In 1897 the

next important specimen, a tail associated with other fragments,

apparently of _Diplodocus longus_, was obtained by the American Museum

of Natural History, New York, from Como Bluffs, Wyoming. In 1899-1900

large parts of two skeletons of another species, in a remarkable state

of preservation, were disinterred by Messrs J. L. Wortman, O. A.

Peterson and J. B. Hatcher in Sheep Creek, Albany county, Wyo., and

these are now exhibited with minor discoveries in the Carnegie Museum,

Pittsburg. There are also other specimens in New York, Chicago and the

University of Wyoming. In 1901 Mr J. B. Hatcher studied the new species

at Pittsburg, named it _Diplodocus carnegii_, and published the first

restored sketch of a complete skeleton. Shortly afterwards plaster casts

of the finest specimens were prepared under the direction of Mr J. B.

Hatcher and Dr W. J. Holland, and these were skilfully combined to form

the cast of a completely reconstructed skeleton, which was presented to

the British Museum by Andrew Carnegie in 1905. This reconstruction is

based primarily on a well-preserved chain of vertebrae, extending from

the second cervical to the twelfth caudal, associated with the ribs,

pelvis and several limb-bones. The tail is completed from two other

specimens in the Carnegie Museum, having caudals 13 to 36 and 37 to 73

respectively in apparently unbroken series. Prof. Marsh's specimen in

Washington supplied the greater part of the skull; and the fore-foot is

copied from a specimen in New York.

[Illustration: Reconstructed Skeleton of _Diplodocus carnegii_, Hatcher,

about one-hundredth natural size. A and B, Caudal Vertebrae Nos. 36 and

70 of the same are about one-quarter natural size.]

The cast of the reconstructed skeleton of _Diplodocus carnegii_ measures

84 ft. in length and 12 ft. 9 in. in maximum height at the hind-limbs.

It displays the elongated neck and tail and the relatively small head so

characteristic of the Sauropodous Dinosaurs. The skull is inclined to

the axis of the neck, denoting a browsing animal; while the feeble blunt

teeth and flat expanded snout suggest feeding among succulent

water-weeds. The large narial opening at the highest point of the head

probably indicates an aquatic mode of life, and there seems to have been

a soft valve to close the nostrils when under water. The diminutive

brain-cavity, scarcely large enough to contain a walnut, is noteworthy.

There are 104 vertebrae, namely, 15 in the neck, 11 in the back, 5 in

the sacrum and 73 in the tail. The presacral vertebrae are of remarkably

light construction, the plates and struts of bone being arranged to give

the greatest strength with the least weight. The end of the tail is a

flexible lash, which would probably be used as a weapon, like the tail

of some existing lizards. The feet, notwithstanding the weight they had

to support, are as unsymmetrical as those of a crocodile, with claws

only on the three inner toes. There is no external armour.

See O. C. Marsh, _Amer. Journ. Sci._ ser. 3, vol. xvi. (1878), p. 414,

pl. viii., and loc. cit. vol. xxvii. (1884), p. 161, pls. iii., iv.;

H. F. Osborn, Mem. _Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist._ vol. i. pt. v. (1899); J.

B. Hatcher, _Mem. Carnegie Mus._ vol. i. No. 1 (1901), and vol. ii.

No. 1 (1903); W. J. Holland, _Mem. Carnegie Mus._ vol. ii. No. 6

(1906). (A. S. Wo.)

DIPLOMACY (Fr. _diplomatie_), the art of conducting international

negotiations. The word, borrowed from the French, has the same

derivation as Diplomatic (q.v.), and, according to the _New English

Dictionary_, was first used in England so late as 1796 by Burke. Yet

there is no other word in the English language that could supply its

exact sense. The need for such a term was indeed not felt; for what we

know as diplomacy was long regarded, partly as falling under the _Jus

gentium_ or international law, partly as a kind of activity morally

somewhat suspect and incapable of being brought under any system.

Moreover, though in a certain sense it is as old as history, diplomacy

as a uniform system, based upon generally recognized rules and directed

by a diplomatic hierarchy having a fixed international status, is of

quite modern growth even in Europe. It was finally established only at

the congresses of Vienna (1815) and Aix-la-Chapelle (1818), while its

effective extension to the great monarchies of the East, beyond the

bounds of European civilization, was comparatively an affair of

yesterday. So late as 1876 it was possible for the writer on this

subject in the 9th edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ to say that

"it would be an historical absurdity to suppose diplomatic relations

connecting together China, Burma and Japan, as they connect the great

European powers."

_Principles._--Though diplomacy has been usually treated under the head

of international law, it would perhaps be more consonant with the facts

to place international law under diplomacy. The principles and rules

governing the intercourse of states, defined by a long succession of

international lawyers, have no sanction save the consensus of the

powers, established and maintained by diplomacy (see BALANCE OF POWER);

in so far as they have become, by international agreement, more than

mere pious opinions of theorists, they are working rules established for

mutual convenience, which it is the function of diplomacy to safeguard

or to use for its own ends. In any case they by no means cover the whole

field of diplomatic activity; and, were they swept away, the art of

diplomacy, developed through long ages of experience, would survive.

This experience may perhaps be called the science, as distinct from the

art, of diplomacy. It covers not only the province of international law,

but the vast field of recorded experience which we know as history, of

which indeed international law is but a part; for, as Bielfeld in his

_Institutions politiques_ (La Haye, 1760, t. I. ch. ii. S 13) points

out, "public law is founded on facts. To know it we must know history,

which is the soul of this science as of politics in general." The broad

outlook on human affairs implied in "historical sense" is more necessary

to the diplomatist under modern conditions than in the 18th century,

when international policy was still wholly under the control of princes

and their immediate advisers. Diplomacy was then a game of wits played

in a narrow circle. Its objects too were narrower; for states were

practically regarded as the property of their sovereigns, which it was

the main function of their "agents" to enlarge or to protect, while

scarcely less important than the preservation or rearrangement of

territorial boundaries was that of precedence and etiquette generally,

over which an incredible amount of time was wasted. The _haute

diplomatie_ thus resolved itself into a process of exalted haggling,

conducted with an utter disregard of the ordinary standards of morality,

but with the most exquisite politeness and in accordance with ever more

and more elaborate rules. Much of the outcome of these dead debates has

become stereotyped in the conventions of the diplomatic service; but the

character of diplomacy itself has undergone a great change. This change

is threefold: firstly, as the result of the greater sense of the

community of interests among nations, which was one of the outcomes of

the French Revolution; secondly, owing to the rise of democracy, with

its expression in parliamentary assemblies and in the press; thirdly,

through the alteration in the position of the diplomatic agent, due to

modern means of communication.

The first of these changes may be dated to the circular of Count Kaunitz

of the 17th of July 1791, in which, in face of the Revolution, he

impressed upon the powers the duty of making common cause for the

purpose of preserving "public peace, the tranquillity of states, the

inviolability of possessions, and the faith of treaties." The duty of

watching over the common interests of Europe, or of the world, was thus

for the first time officially recognized as a function of diplomacy,

since common action could only be taken as the result of diplomatic

negotiations. It would be easy to exaggerate the effective results of

this idea, even when it had crystallized in the Grand Alliance of 1814

and been proclaimed to the world in the Holy Alliance of the 26th of

September 1815 and the declaration of Aix-la-Chapelle. The cynical

picture given by La Bruyere of the diplomatist of the 18th century still

remained largely true: "His talk is only of peace, of alliances, of the

public tranquillity, and of the public interests; in reality he is

thinking only of his own, that is to say, of those of his master or of

his republic."[1] The proceedings of the congress of Vienna proved how

little the common good weighed unless reinforced by particular

interests; but the conception of "Europe" as a political entity none the

less survived. The congresses, notably the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle

(q.v.) in 1818, were in a certain sense European parliaments, and their

ostensible object was the furtherance of common interests. Had the

imperial dreamer Alexander I. of Russia had his way, they would have

been permanently established on the broad basis of the Holy Alliance,

and would have included, not the great powers only, but representatives

of every state (see ALEXANDER I. and EUROPE: _History_). Whatever the

effective value of that "Concert of Europe" which was the outcome of the

period of the congresses, it certainly produced a great effect on the

spirit and the practice of diplomacy. In the congresses and conferences

diplomacy assumes international functions both legislative and

administrative. The diplomat is responsible, not only to his own

government, but to "Europe." Thus Castlereagh was accused of

subordinating the interests of Great Britain to those of Europe; and the

same charge was brought, perhaps with greater justice, against

Metternich in respect of Austria. Canning's principle of "Every nation

for itself and God for us all!" prevailed, it is true, over that of

Alexander's "Confederation of Europe"; yet, as one outcome of the

congresses, every diplomatic agent, though he represents the interests

of his own state, has behind him the whole body of the treaties which

constitute the public law of the world, of which he is in some sort the

interpreter and the guardian.

Parallel with this development runs the second process making for

change: the increasing responsibility of diplomacy to public opinion. To

discuss all the momentous issues involved in this is impossible; but the

subject is too important to be altogether passed over, since it is one

of the main problems of modern international intercourse, and concerns

every one who by his vote may influence the policy of the state to which

he belongs. The question, broadly speaking, is: how far has the public

discussion of international affairs affected the legitimate functions of

diplomacy for better or for worse? To the diplomatist of the old school

the answer seems clear. For him diplomacy was too delicate and too

personal an art to survive the glare and confusion of publicity.

Metternich, the last representative of the old _haute diplomatie_, lived

to moralize over the ruin caused by the first manifestations of the "new

diplomacy," the outcome of the rise of the power of public opinion. He

had early, from his own point of view, unfavourably contrasted the

"limited" constitutional monarchies of the west with the "free"

autocracies of the east of Europe, free because they were under no

obligation to give a public account of their actions. He himself was a

master of the old diplomatic art, of intrigue, of veiling his purpose

under a cloud of magniloquence, above all, of the art of personal

fascination. But public opinion was for him only a dangerous force to be

kept under control; and, even had he realized the necessity for

appealing to it, he had none of the qualities that would have made the

appeal successful. In direct antagonism to him was George Canning, who

may be called the great prototype of the "new diplomacy," and to

Metternich was a "malevolent meteor hurled by divine providence upon

Europe." Canning saw clearly the immense force that would be added to

his diplomatic action if he had behind him the force of public opinion.

In answer to Metternich's complaint of the tone of speeches in

parliament and of the popular support given in England to revolutionary

movements, he wrote, "Our influence, if it is to be maintained abroad,

must be secure in its sources of strength at home: and the sources of

that strength are in the sympathy between the people and the government;

in the union of the public sentiment with the public counsels; in the

reciprocal confidence of the House of Commons and the crown."[2]

It would be a mistake to jump to the conclusion that Canning was wholly

right and Metternich wholly wrong. The conditions of the Habsburg

monarchy were not those of Great Britain,[3] and even if it had been

possible to speak of a public opinion in the Austrian empire at all, it

certainly possessed no such organ as the British parliament. But the

argument may be carried yet further. In the abstract the success of the

policy of a minister in a democratic state must ultimately rest upon the

support of public opinion; yet the necessity for this support has in the

conduct of foreign affairs its peculiar dangers. In the difficult game

of diplomacy a certain reticence is always necessary. Secret sources of

information would be dried up were they to be lightly revealed; a plain

exposition of policy would often give an undue advantage to the other

party to a negotiation. Thus, even in Great Britain, the diplomatic

correspondence laid before parliament is carefully edited, and all

governments are jealous of granting access to their modern archives. Yet

a representative assembly is apt to be resentful of such reservations.

Its members know little or nothing of the conditions under which foreign

affairs are conducted, and they are not unnaturally irritated by

explanations which seem to lack candour or completeness. Canning himself

had experience of this in the affair of the capture of the Danish fleet

at Copenhagen; and Castlereagh's diplomacy was hampered by the bitter

attacks of an opposition which accused him, with little justice, of

pursuing a policy which he dared not reveal in its full scope to

parliament. Moreover, the appeal to public opinion may be used as a

diplomatic weapon for ends no less "selfish" than any aimed at by the

old diplomacy. Bismarck, whose statesmanship was at least as cynical as

that of Metternich, was a master of the art of taking the world into his

confidence--when it suited him to do so; and the "reptile press," hired

to give a seemingly independent support to his policy, was one of his

most potent weapons. So far the only necessary consequence of the growth

of the power of public opinion on the art of diplomacy has been to

extend the sphere of its application; it is but one more factor to be

dealt with; and experience has proved that it is subject to the wiles of

a skilful diplomatist no less than were the princes and statesmen with

whom the old diplomacy was solely concerned.

The third factor making for change--the revolution in the means of

communication which has brought all the world into closer touch--remains

to be discussed. It is obvious that before the invention of the

telegraph, the diplomatic agent was in a far more responsible position

than he is now, when he can, in most cases, receive immediate

instructions from his government on difficult questions as they arise.

When communication was still slow there was often no time to await

instructions, or the instructions when they arrived were not seldom

already out of date and had to be set aside on the minister's own

responsibility. It would, however, be easy to exaggerate the importance

of this change as affecting the character and status of diplomatic

agents. It is true that the tendency has been for ministers of foreign

affairs to hold the threads of diplomacy in their own hands to a far

greater extent than was formerly the case; but they must still depend

for information and advice on the "man on the spot," and the success of

their policy largely depends upon his qualities of discretion and

judgment. The growth of democracy, moreover, has given to the ambassador

a new and peculiar importance; for he represents not only the sovereign

to the sovereign, but the nation to the nation; and, as a succession of

notable American ambassadors to Great Britain has proved, he may by his

personal qualities do a large amount to remove the prejudices and

ignorances which stand as a barrier between the nations. It marks an

immense advance in the comity of international intercourse when the

representatives of friendly powers are no longer regarded as "spies

rather than ambassadors," to be "quickly heard and dismissed," as

Philippe de Commines would have them, but as agreeable guests to be

parted from with regret.

As to the qualifications for an ambassador, it is clearly impossible to

lay down a general rule, for the same qualities are obviously not

required in Washington as in Vienna, nor in Paris as in Pekin. Yet the

effort to depict the ideal ambassador bulks largely in the works of the

earlier theorists, and the demands they make are sufficiently alarming.

Ottaviano Maggi, himself a diplomatist of the brilliant age of the

Renaissance, has left us in his _De legato_ (Hanoviae, 1596) his idea of

what an ambassador should be. He must not only be a good Christian but a

learned theologian; he must be a philosopher, well versed in Aristotle

and Plato, and able at a moment's notice to solve in correct dialectical

form the most abstruse problems; he must be well read in the classics,

and an expert in mathematics, architecture, music, physics and civil and

canon law. He must not only know how to write and speak Latin with

classical refinement, but he must be a master of Greek, Spanish, French,

German and Turkish. He must have a sound knowledge of history, geography

and the science of war; but at the same time is not to neglect the

poets, and never to be without his Homer. Add to this that he must be

well born, rich and of a handsome presence, and we have a portrait of a

diplomatist whose original can hardly have existed even in that age of

brilliant versatility. The Dutchman Frederikus de Marselaer, in his

[Greek: kerukeion] _sive legationum insigne_ (Antwerp, 1618), is

scarcely less exacting than the Venetian. His ideal ambassador is a

nobleman of fine presence and in the prime of life, famous, rich,

munificent, abstemious, not violent, nor quarrelsome, nor morose, no

flatterer, learned, eloquent, witty without being talkative, a good

linguist, widely read, prudent and cautious, but brave and--as he adds

somewhat superfluously--many-sided.

With these theoretical perfections one or two instances of the

qualifications demanded by the exigencies of practical politics may be

cited by way of illuminating contrast. At the court of the empress

Elizabeth of Russia good looks were a surer means of diplomatic success

than all the talents and virtues, and the princess of Zerbst (mother of

the empress Catherine II.) wrote to Frederick of Prussia advising him to

replace his elderly ambassador by a handsome young man with a good

complexion; and the essential qualification for an ambassador to

Switzerland, Germany, Poland, Denmark and Russia used to be that he

should be able to drink the native diplomatists, seasoned from babyhood

to strong liquors, under the table.

_History._--In its widest sense the history of diplomacy is that of the

intercourse between nations, in so far as this has not been a mere brute

struggle for the mastery;[4] in a narrower sense, with which the present

article is alone concerned, it is that of the methods and spirit of

diplomatic intercourse and of the character and status of diplomatic

agents. Earlier writers on the office and functions of ambassadors, such

as Gentilis or Archbishop Germonius, conscientiously trace their origin

to God himself, who created the angels to be his legates; and they

fortify their arguments by copious examples drawn from ancient history,

sacred and profane. But, whatever the influence upon it of earlier

practice, modern diplomacy really dates from the rise of permanent

missions, and the consequent development of the diplomatic hierarchy as

an international institution. Of this the first beginnings are traceable

to the 15th century and to Italy. There had, of course, during the

middle ages been embassies and negotiations; but the embassies had been

no more than temporary missions directed to a particular end and

conducted by ecclesiastics or nobles of a dignity appropriate to each

occasion; there were neither permanent diplomatic agents nor a

professional diplomatic class. To the evolution of such a class the

Italy of the Renaissance, the nursing-ground of modern statecraft, gave

the first impetus. This was but natural; for Italy, with its numerous

independent states, between which there existed a lively intercourse and

a yet livelier rivalry, anticipated in miniature the modern states'

system of Europe. In feudal Europe there had been little room for

diplomacy; but in northern and central Italy feudalism had never taken

root, and in the struggles of the peninsula diplomacy had early played a

part as great as, or greater than, war. Where all were struggling for

the mastery, the existence of each depended upon alliances and

counter-alliances, of which the object was the maintenance of the

balance of power. In this school there was trained a notable succession

of men of affairs. Thus, in the 13th and 14th centuries Florence counted

among her envoys Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio, and later on could boast

of agents such as Capponi, Vettori, Guicciardini and Machiavelli. Papal

Rome, too, as was to be expected, had always been a fruitful

nursing-mother of diplomatists; and some authorities have traced the

beginnings of modern diplomacy to a conscious imitation of her legatine

system.[5]

It is, however, in Venice, that the origins of modern diplomacy are to

be sought.[6] So early as the 13th century the republic, with a view to

safeguarding the public interests, began to lay down a series of rules

for the conduct of its ambassadors. Thus, in 1236, envoys to the court

of Rome are forbidden to procure a benefice for anyone without leave of

the doge and little council; in 1268 ambassadors are commanded to

surrender on their return any gifts they may have received, and by

another decree they are compelled to take an oath to conduct affairs to

the honour and advantage of the republic. About the same time it was

decided that diplomatic agents were to hand in, on their return, a

written account of their mission; in 1288 this was somewhat expanded by

a law decreeing that ambassadors were to deposit, within fifteen days of

their return, a written account of the replies made to them during their

mission, together with anything they might have seen or heard to the

honour or in the interests of the republic. These provisions, which were

several times renewed, notably in 1296, 1425 and 1533, are the origin of

the famous reports of the Venetian ambassadors to the senate, which are

at once a monument to the political genius of Venetian statesmen and a

mine of invaluable historical material.[7]

These are but a few examples of a long series of regulations, many

others also dating to the 13th century, by which the Venetian government

sought to systematize its diplomatic service. That permanent diplomatic

agencies were not established by it earlier than was the case is

probably due to the distrust of its agents by which most of this

legislation of the republic is inspired. In the 13th century two or

three months was considered over-long a period for an ambassador to

reside at a foreign court; in the 15th century the period of residence

was extended to two years, and in the 16th century to three. This latter

rule continued till the end of the republic; the embassy had become

permanent, but the ambassador was changed every three years.

The origin of the change from temporary to permanent missions has been

the subject of much debate and controversy. The theory that it was due,

in the first instance, to the evolution of the Venetian consulates

(_bajulats_) in the Levant into permanent diplomatic posts, and that the

idea was thence transferred to the West, is disproved by the fact that

Venice had established other permanent embassies before the baylo (q.v.)

at Constantinople was transformed into a diplomatic agent of the first

rank. Nor is the first known instance of the appointment of a permanent

ambassador Venetian. The earliest record[8] is contained in the

announcement by Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan, in 1455, of his

intention to maintain a permanent embassy at Genoa[9]; and in 1460 the

duke of Savoy sent Eusebio Margaria, archdeacon of Vercelli, as his

permanent representative to the Curia.[10] Though, however, the early

records of such appointments are rare, the practice was probably common

among the Italian states. Its extension to countries outside Italy was a

somewhat later development. In 1494 Milan is already represented in

France by a permanent ambassador. In 1495 Zacharia Contarini, Venetian

ambassador to the emperor Maximilian, is described by Sanuto (_Diarii_,

i. 294) as _stato ambasciatore_; and from the time of Charles V.

onwards the succession of ambassadors of the republic at the imperial

court is fairly traceable. In 1496 "as the way to the British Isles is

very long and very dangerous," two merchants resident in London, Pietro

Contarini and Luca Valaressa, were appointed by the republic

_subambasciatores_; and in June of the same year Andrea Trevisano

arrived in London as permanent ambassador at the court of Henry VII.[11]

Florence, too, from 1498 onwards, was represented at the courts of

Charles V. and of France by permanent ambassadors.

During the same period the practice had been growing up among the other

European powers. Spain led the way in 1487 by the appointment of Dr

Roderigo Gondesalvi de Puebla as ambassador in England. As he was still

there in 1500, the Spanish embassy in London may be regarded as the

oldest still surviving post of the new permanent diplomacy. Other states

followed suit, but only fitfully; it was not till late in the 16th

century that permanent embassies were regarded as the norm. The

precarious relations between the European powers during the 16th

century, indeed, naturally retarded the development of the system. Thus

it was not till after good relations had been established with France by

the treaty of London that, in 1519, Sir Thomas Boleyn and Dr West were

sent to Paris as resident English ambassadors, and, after the renewed

breach between the two countries, no others were appointed till the

reign of Elizabeth. Nine years before, Sir Robert Wingfield, whose

simplicity earned him the nickname of "Summer-shall-be-green," had been

sent as ambassador to the court of Charles V., where he remained from

1510 to 1517; and in 1520 the mutual appointment of resident ambassadors

was made a condition of the treaty between Henry VIII. and Charles V. In

1517 Thomas Spinelly, who had for some years represented England at the

court of the Netherlands, was appointed "resident ambassador to the

court of Spain," where he remained till his death on the 22nd of August

1522. These are the most important early instances of the new system.

Alone of the great powers, the emperor remained permanently

unrepresented at foreign courts. In theory this was the result of his

unique dignity, which made him superior to all other potentates;

actually it was because, as emperor, he could not speak for the

practically independent princes nominally his vassals. It served all

practical purposes if he were represented abroad by his agents as king

of Spain or archduke of Austria.

All the evidence now available goes to prove that the establishment of

permanent diplomatic agencies was not an unconscious and accidental

development of previous conditions, but deliberately adopted as an

obvious convenience. But, while all the powers were agreed as to the

convenience of maintaining such agencies abroad, all were equally agreed

in viewing the representatives accredited to them by foreign states with

extreme suspicion. This attitude was abundantly justified by the

peculiar ethics of the new diplomacy. The old "orators" of the

Summer-shall-be-green type could not long hold their own against the new

men who had studied in the school of Italian statecraft, for whom the

end justified the means. Machiavelli had gathered in _The Prince_ and

_The Discourses on Livy_ the principles which underlay the practice of

his day in Italy; Francis I., the first monarch to establish a

completely organized diplomatic machinery, did most to give these

principles a European extension. By the close of the 16th century

diplomacy had become frankly "Machiavellian," and the ordinary rules of

morality were held not to apply to the intercourse between nations. This

was admitted in theory as well as in practice. Germonius, after a

vigorous denunciation of lying in general, argues that it is permissible

for the safety or convenience (_commodo_) of princes, since _salus

populi suprema lex_, and _quod non permittit naturalis ratio, admittit

civilis_; and he adduces in support of this principle the answer given

by Ulysses to Neoptolemus, in the _Ajax_ of Sophocles, and the examples

of Abraham, Jacob and David. Paschalius, while affirming that an

ambassador must study to speak the truth, adds that he is not such a

"rustic boor" as to say that an "official lie" (_officiosum mendacium_)

is never to be employed, or to deny that an ambassador should be, on

occasion, _splendide mendax_.[12] The situation is summed up in the

famous definition of Sir Henry Wotton, which, though excused by himself

as a jest, was held to be an indiscreet revelation of the truth: "An

ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his

country."[13] The most successful liar, in fact, was esteemed the most

successful diplomatist. "A prime article of the catechism of

ambassadors," says Bayle in his _Dictionnaire critique_ (1699),

"whatever their religion, is to invent falsehoods and to go about making

society believe them." So universally was this principle adopted that,

in the end, no diplomatist even expected to be believed; and the best

way to deceive was--as Bismarck cynically avowed--to tell the truth.

But, in addition to being a liar _ex officio_, the ambassador was also

"an honourable spy." "The principal functions of an envoy," says

Francois de Callieres, himself an ex-ambassador of Louis XIV., "are two;

the first is to look after the affairs of his own prince; the second is

to discover the affairs of the other." A clever minister, he maintains,

will know how to keep himself informed of all that goes on in the mind

of the sovereign, in the councils of ministers or in the country; and

for this end "good cheer and the warming effect of wine" are excellent

allies.[14] This being so, it is hardly to be wondered at that foreign

ambassadors were commonly regarded as perhaps necessary, but certainly

very unwelcome, guests. The views of Philippe de Commines have already

been quoted above, and they were shared by a long series of theoretical

writers as well as by men of affairs. Gentilis is all but alone in his

protest against the view that all ambassadors were _exploratores magis

quam oratores_, and to be treated as such. So early as 1481 the

government of Venice had decreed the penalty of banishment and a heavy

fine for any one who should talk of affairs of state with a foreign

envoy, and though the more civilized princes did not follow the example

of the sultan, who by way of precaution locked the ambassador of

Ferdinand II., Jerome Laski, into "a dark and stinking place without

windows," they took the most minute precautions to prevent the

ambassadors of friendly powers from penetrating into their secrets.

Charles V. thought it safest to keep them as far away as possible from

his court. So did Francis I.; and, when affairs were critical, he made

his frequent changes of residence and his hunting expeditions the excuse

for escaping from their presence. Henry VII. forbade his subjects to

hold any intercourse with them, and, later on, set spies upon them and

examined their correspondence--a practice by no means confined to

England. If the system of permanent embassies survived, it is clear that

this was mainly due to the belief of the sovereigns that they gained

more by maintaining "honourable spies" at foreign courts than they lost

by the presence of those of foreign courts at their own. It was purely a

question of the balance of advantage. Neither among statesmen nor among

theorists was there any premonition of the great part to be played by

the permanent diplomatic body in the development and maintenance of the

concert of Europe. To Paschalius the permanent embassies were "a

miserable outgrowth of a miserable age."[15] Grotius himself condemned

them as not only harmful, but useless, the proof of the latter being

that they were unknown to antiquity.[16]

_Development of the Diplomatic Hierarchy._--The history of the

diplomatic body[17] is, like that of other bodies, that of the

progressive differentiation of functions. The middle ages knew no

classification of diplomatic agents; the person sent on mission is

described indifferently as _legatus_, _orator_, _nuntius_, _ablegatus_,

_commissarius_, _procurator_, _mandatarius_, _agens_ or _ambaxator_

(_ambassator_, &c.). In Gundissalvus, _De legato_ (1485), the oldest

printed work on the subject, the word _ambasiator_, first found in a

Venetian decree of 1268, is applied to any diplomat. Florence was the

first to make distinction; the _orator_ was appointed by the council of

the republic; the _mandatorio_, with inferior powers, by the Council of

Ten. In 1500 Machiavelli, who held only the latter rank, wrote from

France urging the Signoria to send _ambasiadori_. This was, however,

rather a question of powers than of dignity. But the causes which

ultimately led to the elaborate differentiation of diplomatic ranks were

rather questions of dignity than of functions.[18] The breakdown of

feudalism, with the consequent rise of a series of sovereign states or

of states claiming to be sovereign, of very various size and importance,

led to a certain confusion in the ceremonial relation between them,

which had been unknown to the comparatively clearly defined system of

the middle ages. The smaller states were eager to assert the dignity of

their actual or practical independence; the greater powers were equally

bent on "keeping them in their place." If the emperor, as has been

stated above, was too exalted to send ambassadors, certain of the lesser

states were soon esteemed too humble to be represented at the courts of

the great powers save by agents of an inferior rank. By the second half

of the 16th century, then, there are two classes of diplomatists,

ambassadors and residents or agents, the latter being accounted

ambassadors of the second class.[19] At first the difference of rank was

determined by the status of the sovereign by whom or to whom the

diplomatic agent was accredited; but early in the 16th century it became

fairly common for powers of the first rank to send agents of the second

class to represent them at courts of an equal status. The reasons were

various, and not unamusing. First and foremost came the question of

expense. The ambassador, as representing the person of his sovereign,

was bound by the sentiment of the age to display an exaggerated

magnificence. His journeys were like royal progresses, his state entries

surrounded with every circumstance of pomp, and it was held to be his

duty to advertise the munificence of his prince by boundless largesses.

Had this munificence been as unlimited in fact as in theory, all might

have been well, but, in that age of vaulting ambitions, depleted

exchequers were the rule rather than the exception in Europe; the

records are full of pitiful appeals from ambassadors for arrears of pay,

and appointment to an embassy often meant ruin, even to a man of

substance. To give but one example, Sir Richard Morison, Edward VI.'s

ambassador in Germany, had to borrow money to pay his debts before he

could leave Augsburg (_Cal. State Pap. Edw. VI._, No. 467), and later on

he writes from Hamburg (April 9, 1552) that he could buy nothing,

because everyone believed that he had packed up in readiness to flit

secretly, for "How must they buy things, where men know their stuff is

ready trussed up, and they fleeting every day?" (ib. No. 544). But the

dignity of ambassador carried another drawback besides expense; his

function of "honourable spy" was seriously hampered by the trammels of

his position. He was unable to move freely in society, but lived a

ceremonial existence in the midst of a crowd of retainers, through whom

alone it was proper for him to communicate with the world outside. It

followed that, though the office of ambassador was more dignified, that

of agent was more generally useful.

Yet a third cause, possibly the most immediately potent, encouraged the

growth of the lesser diplomatic ranks: the question of precedence among

powers theoretically equal. Modern diplomacy has settled a difficulty

which caused at one time much heart-burning and even bloodshed by a

simple appeal to the alphabet. Great Britain feels no humiliation in

signing after France, if the reason be that her name begins with G; had

she not been Great, she would sign before. The vexed question of the

precedence of ambassadors, too, has been settled by the rule, already

referred to above, as to seniority of appointment. But while the

question remained unsettled it was obviously best to evade it; and this

was most easily done by sending an agent of inferior rank to a court

where the precedence claimed for an ambassador would have been refused.

Thus set in motion, the process of differentiation continues until the

system is stereotyped in the 19th century. It is unnecessary to trace

this evolution here in any detail. It is mainly a question of names, and

diplomatic titles are no exception to the general rule by which all

titles tend to become cheapened and therefore, from time to time, need

to be reinforced by fresh verbal devices. The method was the familiar

one of applying terms that had once implied a particular quality in a

fashion that implied actually nothing. The ambassador extraordinary had

originally been one sent on an extraordinary mission; for the time and

purpose of this mission his authority superseded that of the resident

ambassador. But by the middle of the 17th century the custom had grown

up of calling all ambassadors "extraordinary," in order to place them on

an equality with the others. The same process was extended to

diplomatists of the second rank; and envoys (_envoye_ for _ablegatus_)

were always "extraordinary," and as such claimed and received precedence

over mere "residents," who in their day had asserted the same claim

against the agents--all three terms having at one time been synonymous.

Similarly a "minister plenipotentiary" had originally meant an agent

armed with full powers (_plein-pouvoir_); but, by a like process, the

combination came to mean as little as "envoy extraordinary"--though a

plenipotentiary _tout simple_ is still an agent, of no ceremonially

defined dignity, despatched with full powers to treat and conclude.

Finally, the evolution of the title of a diplomatist of the second rank

is crowned by the high-sounding combination, now almost exclusively

used, of "envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary." The

ultimate fate of the simple title "resident" was the same as that of

"agent." Both had been freely sold by needy sovereigns to all and sundry

who were prepared to pay for what gave them a certain social status. The

"agent" fell thus into utter discredit, and those "residents" who were

still actual diplomatic agents became "ministers resident" to

distinguish them from the common herd.

The classification of diplomatic agents was for the first time

definitively included in the general body of international law by the

_Reglement_ of the 19th of March 1815 at Vienna[20]; and the whole

question was finally settled at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle

(November 21, 1818) when, the proposal to establish precedence by the

status of the accrediting powers having wisely been rejected, diplomatic

agents were divided into four classes: (1) Ambassadors, legates,

nuncios; (2) Envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, and

other ministers accredited direct to the sovereign; (3) Ministers

resident; (4) Charges d'affaires. With a few exceptions (e.g. Turkey),

this settlement was accepted by all states, including the United States

of America.

_Rights and Privileges of Diplomatic Agents._--These are partly founded

upon immemorial custom, partly the result of negotiations embodied in

international law. The most important, as it is the most ancient, is the

right of personal _inviolability_ extended to the diplomatic agent and

the members of his suite. This inviolability is maintained after a

rupture between the two governments concerned, and even after the

outbreak of war. The habit of the Ottoman government of imprisoning in

the Seven Towers the ambassador of a power with which it quarrelled was

but an exception which proved the rule. The second important right is

that of exterritoriality (q.v.), a convenient fiction by which the house

and equipages of the diplomatic agent are regarded as the territory of

the power by whom he is accredited. This involves the further principle

that the agent is in no way subject to the receiving government. He is

exempt from taxation and from the payment at least of certain local

rates. He also enjoys immunity (1) from civil jurisdiction, e.g. he

cannot be sued, nor can his goods be seized, for debt; (2) from criminal

jurisdiction, e.g. he cannot be arrested and tried for a criminal

offence. For a crime of violence, however, or for plotting against the

state, he can be placed under the necessary restraint and expelled the

country.[21] These immunities extend to all the members of an envoy's

suite. The difficulties that might be supposed to arise from such

exemptions have not in practice been found very serious; for though, in

the case of crimes committed by servants of agents of the first or

second class the procedure is not clearly defined, each case would

easily be made the subject of arrangement. In certain cases, e.g.

embassies in Turkey, the exterritoriality of ambassadors implies a

fairly extensive criminal jurisdiction; in other cases the dismissal of

the servant would deprive him of his diplomatic immunity and bring him

under the law of the land. The right of granting asylum claimed by

diplomatic agents in virtue of that of exterritoriality, at one time

much abused, is now strictly limited. A political or criminal offender

may seek asylum in a foreign embassy; but if, after a request has been

formally made for his surrender, the ambassador refuses to deliver him

up, the authorities may take the measures necessary to effect his

arrest, and even force an entrance into the embassy for the purpose. The

"right of chapel" (_droit de chapelle_, or _droit de culte_), enjoyed by

envoys in reference to their exterritoriality, i.e. the right of free

exercise of religious worship within their house, formerly of great

importance, has been rendered superfluous by the spread of religious

toleration. (See L. Oppenheim, _Internat. Law_ (London, 1905), i. p. 441,

&c.; A.W. Haffter, _Das europaische Volkerrecht_ (Berlin, 1888), p. 435,

&c.)

_The Personnel of the "Corps diplomatique."_--The establishment of

diplomacy as a regular branch of the civil service is of modern growth,

and even now by no means universal. From old time states naturally chose

as their agents those who would best serve their interests in the matter

in hand. In the middle ages diplomacy was practically a monopoly of the

clergy, who as a class alone possessed the necessary qualifications: and

in later times, when learning had spread to the laity as well, there

were still potent reasons why the clergy should continue to be employed

as diplomatic agents. Of these reasons the most practical was that of

expense; for the wealth of the church formed an inexhaustible reserve

which was used without scruple for secular purposes. Francis I. of

France, who by the Concordat with Rome had in his hands the patronage of

all the sees and abbeys in France, used this partly to reward his

clerical ministers, partly as a great secret service fund for bribing

the ambassadors of other powers, partly for the payment of those

high-placed spies at foreign courts maintained by the elaborately

organized system known as the _Secret du Roi_.[22] None the less, in

the 16th century, laymen as diplomats are already well in evidence. They

are usually lawyers, rarely soldiers, occasionally even simple

merchants. Not uncommonly they were foreigners, like the Italian Thomas

Spinelly mentioned above, drawn from that cosmopolitan class of

diplomats who were ready to serve any master. Though nobles were often

employed as ambassadors by all the powers, Venice alone made nobility a

condition of diplomatic service. They were professional in the sense

that, for the most part, diplomacy was the main occupation of their

lives; there was, however, no graded diplomatic service in which, as at

present, it was possible to rise on a fixed system from the position of

simple _attache_ to that of minister and ambassador. The "attache to the

embassy" existed[23]; but he was not, as is now the case, a young

diplomat learning his profession, but an experienced man of affairs,

often a foreigner employed by the ambassador as adviser, secret service

agent and general go-between, and he was without diplomatic status.[24]

The 18th century saw the rise of the diplomatic service in the modern

sense. The elaboration of court ceremonial, for which Versailles had set

the fashion, made it desirable that diplomatic agents should be

courtiers, and young men of rank about the court began to be attached to

missions for the express purpose of teaching them the art of diplomacy.

Thus arose that aristocratic diplomatic class, distinguished by the

exquisite refinement of its manners, which survived from the 18th

century into the 19th. Modern democracy has tended to break with this

tradition, but it still widely prevails. Even in Great Britain, where

the rest of the public services have been thrown open to all classes, a

certain social position is still demanded for candidates for the

diplomatic service and the foreign office, and in addition to passing a

competitive examination, they must be nominated by someone of recognized

station prepared to vouch for their social qualifications. In America,

where no regular diplomatic service exists, all diplomatic agents are

nominated by the president.

The existence of an official diplomatic service, however, by no means

excludes the appointment of outsiders to diplomatic posts. It is, in

fact, one of the main grievances of the regular diplomatic body that the

great rewards of their profession, the embassies, are so often assigned

to politicians or others who have not passed through the drudgery of the

service. But though this practice has, doubtless, sometimes been abused,

it is impossible to criticize the wisdom of its occasional application.

A word may be added as to the part played by women in diplomacy. So far

as their unofficial influence upon it is concerned, it would be

impossible to exaggerate its importance; it would suffice to mention

three names taken at random from the annals of the 19th century, Madame

de Stael, Baroness von Krudener, and Princess Lieven. Gentz comments on

the "feminine intrigues" that darkened the counsels of the congresses of

Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle, and from which the powers so happily escaped

in the bachelor seclusion of Troppau. Nor is it to be supposed that

statesmen will ever renounce a diplomatic weapon so easy of disguise and

so potent for use. A brilliant _salon_ presided over by a woman of charm

may be a most valuable centre of a political propaganda; and ladies are

still widely employed in the secret diplomacy of the powers. Their

employment as regularly accredited diplomatic agents, however, though

not unknown, has been extremely rare. An interesting instance is the

appointment of Catherine of Aragon, when princess of Wales, as

representative of her father, Ferdinand the Catholic, at the court of

Henry VII. (G. A. Bergenroth, _Calendar of State Papers ... England and

Spain--in the Archives at Simancas, &c._, i. pp. xxxiii, cxix).

LITERATURE.--Besides general works on international law (q.v.) which

necessarily deal with the subject of diplomacy, a vast mass of

treatises on diplomatic agents exists. The earliest printed work is

the _Tractatus de legato_ (Rome, 1485) of Gundissalvus (Gonsalvo de

Villadiego), professor of law at Salamanca, auditor for Spain at the

Roman court of the Rota, and bishop of Oviedo; but the first really

systematic writer on the subject was Albericus Gentilis, _De

legationibus libri iii_. (London, 1583, 1585, Hanover, 1596, 1607,

1612). For a full bibliography of works on ambassadors see Baron

Diedrich H. L. von Ompteda, _Litteratur des gesammten sowohl

naturlichen als positiven Volkerrechts_ (Regensburg, 1785), p. 534,

&c., which was completed and continued by the Prussian minister Karl

Albert von Kamptz, in _Neue Literatur des Volkerrechts seit dem Jahre

1784_ (Berlin, 1817), p. 231. A list of writers, with critical and

biographical remarks, is also given in Ernest Nys's "Les Commencements

de la diplomatie et le droit d'ambassade jusqu'a Grotius," in the

_Revue de droit international_, vol. xvi. p. 167. Other useful modern

works on the history of diplomacy are: E. C. Grenville-Murray,

_Embassies and Foreign Courts, a History of Diplomacy_ (2nd ed.,

1856); J. Zeller, _La Diplomatie francaise vers le milieu du XVI^e

siecle_ (Paris, 1881); A. O. Meyer, _Die englische Diplomatie in

Deutschland zur Zeit Eduards VI. und Mariens_ (Breslau, 1900); and,

above all, Otto Krauske, _Die Entwickelung der standgien Diplomatie

vom funfzehnten Jahrhundert bis zu den Beschlussen von 1815 und 1818_,

in Gustav Schmoller's _Staats- und socialwissenschaftliche

Forschungen_, vol. v. (Leipzig, 1885). To these may be added, as

admirably illustrating in detail the early developments of modern

diplomacy, Logan Pearsall Smith's _Life and Letters of Sir Henry

Wotton_ (Oxford, 1907). Of works on modern diplomacy the most

important are the _Guide diplomatique_ of Baron Charles de Martens,

new edition revised by F. H. Geffcken, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1866), and P.

Pradier-Fodere, _Cours de droit diplomatique_, 2 vols. (Paris, 1881).

(W. A. P.)