[1] Lat. _dactylus_, finger, hence fruit of the date palm, gave O.
Fr. _date_, mod. _datte_; distinguish "date," in chronology, from
Lat. _datum_, _data_, given, used at the beginning of a letter, &c.,
to show time and place of writing, e.g. _Datum Romae_.
DATIA, a native state of Central India, in the Bundelkhand agency. It
lies in the extreme north-west of Bundelkhand, near Gwalior, and is
surrounded on all sides by other states of Central India, except on the
east where it meets the United Provinces. The state came under the
British government after the treaty of Bassein in 1802. Area, 911 sq. m.
Pop. (1901) 173,759. Estimated revenue, L70,000; tribute to Sindhia paid
through the British Government, L1000. The chief, whose title is
maharaja, is a Rajput of the Bundela clan, being descended from a
younger son of a former chief of Orchha. The state suffered from famine
in 1896-1897, and again to a less extent in 1899-1900. It is traversed
by the branch of the Indian Midland railway from Jhansi to Gwalior. The
town of Datia has a railway station, 16 m. from Jhansi. Pop. (1901)
24,071. It is surrounded by a stone wall, enclosing handsome palaces,
with gardens; the palace of Bir Singh Deo, of the 17th century, is "one
of the finest examples of Hindu domestic architecture in India"
(_Imperial Gazetteer of India_, 1908).
DATIVE (Lat. _dativus_, giving or given, from _dare_, to give), the
name, in grammar, of the case of the "indirect object," the person or
thing to or for whom or which anything is given or done. In law, the
word signifies something, such as an office, which may be disposed of at
will or pleasure, and is opposed to perpetual. In Scots law the term is
applied to persons, duties or powers, appointed or granted by a court of
law; thus an "executor-dative" is an executor appointed by the court and
not by a testator. It answers, therefore, to the English administrator
(q.v.). In Roman law, a _tutor_ was either _dativus_, if expressly
nominated in a testament, or _optivus_, if a power of selection was
given.
DATOLITE, a mineral species consisting of basic calcium and boron
orthosilicate, Ca(BOH)SiO4. It was first observed by J. Esmark in 1806,
and named by him from [Greek: dateisthai], "to divide," and [Greek:
lithos], "stone," in allusion to the granular structure of the massive
mineral. It usually occurs as well-developed glassy crystals bounded by
numerous bright faces, many of which often have a more or less
pentagonal outline. The crystals were for a long time considered to be
orthorhombic, and indeed they approach closely to this system in habit,
interfacial angles and optical orientation; humboldtite was the name
given by A. Levy in 1823 to monoclinic crystals supposed to be distinct
from datolite, but the two were afterwards proved to be identical. The
mineral also occurs as masses with a granular to compact texture; when
compact the fractured surfaces have the appearance of porcelain. A
fibrous variety with a botryoidal or globular surface is known as
botryolite. Datolite is white or colourless, often with a greenish
tinge; it is transparent or opaque. Hardness 5-5(1/2); specific gravity
3.0.
Datolite is a mineral of secondary origin, and in its mode of occurrence
it resembles the zeolites, being found with them in the amygdaloidal
cavities of basic igneous rocks such as basalt; it is also found in
gneiss and serpentine, and in metalliferous veins and in beds of iron
ore. At Arendal in Norway, the original locality for both the
crystallized and botryoidal varieties, it is found in a bed of
magnetite. In amygdaloidal basaltic rocks it is found at Bishopton in
Renfrewshire and near Edinburgh; and as excellent crystallized specimens
at several localities in the United States, e.g. at Westfield in
Massachusetts, Bergen and Paterson in New Jersey, and in the
copper-mining region of Lake Superior. At St Andreasberg in the Harz it
occurs both in diabase and in the veins of silver ore. Fine specimens
have recently been obtained from Tasmania.
Large crystals of datolite completely altered to chalcedony were
formerly found with magnetite in the Haytor iron mine on Dartmoor in
Devonshire; to these pseudomorphs the name haytorite has been applied.
(L. J. S.)
DAUB, KARL (1765-1836), German Protestant theologian, was born at Cassel
on the 20th of March 1765. He studied philosophy, philology and theology
at Marburg in 1786, and eventually (1795) became professor ordinarius of
theology at Heidelberg, where he died on the 22nd of November 1836. Daub
was one of the leaders of a school which sought to reconcile theology
and philosophy, and to bring about a speculative reconstruction of
orthodox dogma. In the course of his intellectual development, he came
successively under the influence of Kant, Schelling and Hegel, and on
account of the different phases through which he passed he was called
the Talleyrand of German thought. There was one great defect in his
speculative theology: he ignored historical criticism. His purpose was,
as Otto Pfleiderer says, "to connect the metaphysical ideas, which had
been arrived at by means of philosophical dialectic, directly with the
persons and events of the Gospel narratives, thus raising these above
the region of ordinary experience into that of the supernatural, and
regarding the most absurd assertions as philosophically justified. Daub
had become so hopelessly addicted to this perverse principle that he
deduced not only Jesus as the embodiment of the philosophical idea of
the union of God and man, but also Judas Iscariot as the embodiment of
the idea of a rival god, or Satan." The three stages in Daub's
development are clearly marked in his writings. His _Lehrbuch der
Katechetik_ (1801) was written under the spell of Kant. His
_Theologumena_ (1806), his _Einleitung in das Studium der christl.
Dogmatik_ (1810), and his _Judas Ischarioth_ (2 vols., 1816, 2nd ed.,
1818), were all written in the spirit of Schelling, the last of them
reflecting a change in Schelling himself from theosophy to positive
philosophy. Daub's _Die dogmatische Theologie jetziger Zeit oder die
Selbstsucht in der Wissenschaft des Glaubens_ (1833), and _Vorlesungen
uber die Prolegomena zur Dogmatik_ (1839), are Hegelian in principle and
obscure in language.
See Rosenkranz, _Erinnerungen an Karl Daub_ (1837); D. Fr. Strauss,
_Charakteristiken und Kritiken_ (2nd ed., 1844); and cf. F.
Lichtenberger, _History of German Theology_ (1889); Otto Pfleiderer,
_Development of Theology_ (1890). (M. A. C.)
DAUBENTON, LOUIS-JEAN-MARIE (1716-1800), French naturalist, was born at
Montbar (Cote d'Or) on the 29th of May 1716. His father, Jean Daubenton,
a notary, destined him for the church, and sent him to Paris to learn
theology, but the study of medicine was more to his taste. The death of
his father in 1736 set him free to follow his own inclinations, and
accordingly in 1741 he graduated in medicine at Reims, and returned to
his native town with the intention of practising as a physician. But
about this time Buffon, also a native of Montbar, had formed the plan of
bringing out a grand treatise on natural history, and in 1742 he invited
Daubenton to assist him by providing the anatomical descriptions for
that work. The characters of the two men were opposed in almost every
respect. Buffon was violent and impatient; Daubenton, gentle and
patient; Buffon was rash in his judgments, and imaginative, seeking
rather to divine than to discover truths; Daubenton was cautious, and
believed nothing he had not himself been able to see or ascertain. From
nature each appeared to have received the qualities requisite to temper
those of the other; and a more suitable coadjutor than Daubenton it
would have been difficult for Buffon to obtain. In the first section of
the natural history Daubenton gave descriptions and details of the
dissection of 182 species of quadrupeds, thus procuring for himself a
high reputation, and exciting the envy of Reaumur, who considered
himself as at the head of the learned in natural history in France. A
feeling of jealousy induced Buffon to dispense with the services of
Daubenton in the preparation of the subsequent parts of his work, which,
as a consequence, lost much in precision and scientific value. Buffon
afterwards perceived and acknowledged his error, and renewed his
intimacy with his former associate. The number of dissertations on
natural history which Daubenton published in the memoirs of the French
Academy is very great. Zoological descriptions and dissections, the
comparative anatomy of recent and fossil animals, vegetable physiology,
mineralogy, experiments in agriculture, and the introduction of the
merino sheep into France gave active occupation to his energies; and the
cabinet of natural history in Paris, of which in 1744 he was appointed
keeper and demonstrator, was arranged and considerably enriched by him.
From 1775 Daubenton lectured on natural history in the college of
medicine, and in 1783 on rural economy at the Alfort school. He was also
professor of mineralogy at the Jardin du Roi. As a lecturer he was in
high repute, and to the last retained his popularity. In December 1799
he was appointed a member of the senate, but at the first meeting which
he attended he fell from his seat in an apoplectic fit, and after a
short illness died at Paris on the 1st of January 1800.
DAUBENY, CHARLES GILES BRIDLE (1795-1867), English chemist, botanist and
geologist, was the third son of the Rev. James Daubeny, and was born at
Stratton in Gloucestershire on the 11th of February 1795. In 1808 he
went to Winchester, and in 1810 he was elected to a demyship at Magdalen
College, Oxford, where the lectures of Dr Kidd first awakened in him a
desire for the cultivation of natural science. In 1814 he graduated with
second-class honours, and in the next year he obtained the prize for the
Latin essay. From 1815 to 1818 he studied medicine in London and
Edinburgh. He took his M.D. degree at Oxford, and was a fellow of the
College of Physicians. In 1819, in the course of a tour through France,
he made the volcanic district of Auvergne a special study, and his
_Letters on the Volcanos of Auvergne_ were published in _The Edinburgh
Journal_, 1820-21. He was elected F.R.S. in 1822. By subsequent journeys
in Hungary, Transylvania, Italy, Sicily, France and Germany he extended
his knowledge of volcanic phenomena; and in 1826 the results of his
observations were given in a work entitled _A Description of Active and
Extinct Volcanos_ (2nd ed., 1848). In common with Gay Lussac and Davy,
he held subterraneous thermic disturbances to be probably due to the
contact of water with metals of the alkalis and alkaline earths. In
November 1822 Daubeny succeeded Dr Kidd as professor of chemistry at
Oxford, and retained this post until 1855; and in 1834 he was appointed
to the chair of botany, to which was subsequently attached that of rural
economy. At the Oxford botanic garden he conducted numerous experiments
upon the effect of changes in soil, light and the composition of the
atmosphere upon vegetation. In 1830 he published in the _Philosophical
Transactions_ a paper on the iodine and bromine of mineral waters. In
the following year appeared his _Introduction to the Atomic Theory_,
which was succeeded by a supplement in 1840, and in 1850 by a second
edition. In 1831 Daubeny represented the universities of England at the
first meeting of the British Association, which at his request held
their next session at Oxford. In 1836 he communicated to the Association
a report on the subject of mineral and thermal waters. In 1837 he
visited the United States, and acquired there the materials for papers
on the thermal springs and the geology of North America, read in 1838
before the Ashmolean Society and the British Association. In 1856 he
became president of the latter body at its meeting at Cheltenham. In
1841 Daubeny published his _Lectures on Agriculture_; in 1857 his
_Lectures on Roman Husbandry_; in 1863 _Climate: an inquiry into the
causes of its differences and into its influence on Vegetable Life_; and
in 1865 an _Essay on the Trees and Shrubs of the Ancients_, and a
_Catalogue of the Trees and Shrubs indigenous to Greece and Italy_. His
last literary work was the collection of his _Miscellanies_, published
in two volumes, in 1867. In all his undertakings Daubeny was actuated by
a practical spirit and a desire for the advancement of knowledge; and
his personal influence on his contemporaries was in keeping with the
high character of his various literary productions. He died in Oxford on
the 12th of December 1867.
See Obituary by John Phillips in _Proceedings of Ashmolean Soc._,
1868.
DAUBIGNY, CHARLES FRANCOIS (1817-1878), French landscape painter, allied
in several ways with the Barbizon School, was born in Paris, on the 15th
of February 1817, but spent much time as a child at Valmondois, a
village on the Oise to the north-west of Paris. Daubigny was the son of
an artist, and most of his family were painters. He began to paint very
early in life, and at the age of seventeen he took a studio of his own.
Within twelve months he had saved enough to go to Italy, where he
studied and painted for nearly two years; he then returned to Paris, not
to leave it again until, in 1860, he took a house at Auvers on the Oise.
By 1837 Daubigny had become famous as a river and landscape painter,
although he had been devoting himself as well to drawing in
black-and-white, to etching, wood engraving, and lithography. In 1855
his picture, "Lock at Optevoz," now in the Louvre, was purchased by the
state; four years later Daubigny was created knight of the Legion of
Honour, and in 1874 he was promoted to be an officer. In 1866, at the
invitation of Lord, then Mr Leighton and others, he visited London,
where, however, he was hurt by his now famous "Moonlight" being badly
hung in the Old Royal Academy. But the personal encouragement of his
admirers in England made up for the disappointment, and the sale of his
picture to a Royal Academician greatly pleased him. In 1870-1871 he
again visited London, and subsequently Holland, where he painted a
number of river scenes with windmills. In 1874, having returned to
Paris, he fell ill, and from that time until he died (on the 19th of
February 1878) his work won less distinction than before. In 1904 the
municipality of Auvers-sur-Oise decided to erect a bronze monument to
Daubigny's memory.
Daubigny's finest pictures were painted between 1864 and 1874, and these
for the most part consist of carefully completed landscapes with trees,
river and a few ducks. It has curiously been said, yet with some
appearance of truth, that when Daubigny liked his pictures himself he
added another duck or two, so that the number of ducks often indicates
greater or less artistic quality in his pictures. One of his sayings
was, "The best pictures do not sell," as he frequently found his finest
achievements little understood. Yet although during the latter part of
his life he was considered a highly successful painter, the money value
of his pictures since his death has increased nearly tenfold. Daubigny
is chiefly preferred in his riverside pictures, of which he painted a
great number, but although there are two large landscapes by Daubigny in
the Louvre, neither is a river view. They are for that reason not so
typical as many of his smaller Oise and Seine pictures.
The works of Daubigny are, like Corot's, to be found in many modern
collections. His most ambitious canvases are: "Springtime" (1857), in
the Louvre; "Borde de la Cure, Morvan" (1864); "Villerville sur Mer"
(1864); "Moonlight" (1865); "Andresy sur Oise" (1868); and "Return of
the Flock--Moonlight" (1878).
His followers and pupils were his son Karl (who sometimes painted so
well that his works are occasionally mistaken for those of his father,
though in few cases do they equal his father's mastery), Oudinot, Delpy
and Damoye.
See Fred Henriet, _C. Daubigny et son oeuvre_ (Paris, 1878); D. Croal
Thomson, _The Barbizon School of Painters_ (London, 1890); J. W.
Mollett, _Daubigny_ (London, 1890); J. Claretie, _Peintres et
sculpteurs contemporains: Daubigny_ (Paris, 1882); Albert Wolff, _La
Capitale de l'art: Ch. Francois Daubigny_ (Paris, 1881). (D. C. T.)
DAUBREE, GABRIEL AUGUSTE (1814-1896), French geologist, was born at
Metz, on the 25th of June 1814, and educated at the Ecole Polytechnique
in Paris. At the age of twenty he had qualified as a mining engineer,
and in 1838 he was appointed to take charge of the mines in the Bas-Rhin
(Alsace), and subsequently to be professor of mineralogy and geology at
the Faculty of Sciences, Strassburg. In 1859 he became engineer in chief
of mines, and in 1861 he was appointed professor of geology at the
museum of natural history in Paris and was also elected member of the
Academy of Sciences. In the following year he became professor of
mineralogy at the Ecole des Mines, and in 1872 director of that school.
In 1880 the Geological Society of London awarded to him the Wollaston
medal. His published researches date from 1841, when the origin of
certain tin minerals attracted his attention; he subsequently discussed
the formation of bog-iron ore, and worked out in detail the geology of
the Bas-Rhin (1852). From 1857 to 1861, while engaged in engineering
works connected with the springs of Plombieres, he made a series of
interesting observations on thermal waters and their influence on the
Roman masonry through which they made their exit. He was, however,
especially distinguished for his long-continued and often dangerous
experiments on the artificial production of minerals and rocks. He
likewise discussed the permeability of rocks by water, and the effects
of such infiltration in producing volcanic phenomena; he dealt with the
subject of metamorphism, with the deformations of the earth's crust,
with earthquakes, and with the composition and classification of
meteorites. He died in Paris on the 29th of May 1896.
His publications were: _Etudes et experiences synthetiques sur le
metamorphisme et sur la formation des roches cristallines_ (1860);
_Etudes synthetiques de geologie experimentale_ (1879); _Les Eaux
souterraines a l'epoque actuelle_ (2 vols., 1887); _Le Eaux souterraines
aux epoques anciennes_ (1887).
DAUDET, ALPHONSE (1840-1897), French novelist, was born at Nimes on the
13th of May 1840. His family, on both sides, belonged to the
_bourgeoisie_. The father, Vincent Daudet, was a silk manufacturer--a
man dogged through life by misfortune and failure. The lad, amid much
truancy, had but a depressing boyhood. In 1856 he left Lyons, where his
schooldays had been mainly spent, and began life as an usher at Alais,
in the south. The position proved to be intolerable. As Dickens declared
that all through his prosperous career he was haunted in dreams by the
miseries of his apprenticeship to the blacking business, so Daudet says
that for months after leaving Alais he would wake with horror thinking
he was still among his unruly pupils. On the 1st of November 1857 he
abandoned teaching, and took refuge with his brother Ernest, only some
three years his senior, who was trying, "and thereto soberly," to make a
living as a journalist in Paris. Alphonse betook himself to his pen
likewise,--wrote poems, shortly collected into a small volume _Les
Amoureuses_ (1858), which met with a fair reception,--obtained
employment on the _Figaro_, then under Cartier de Villemessant's
energetic editorship, wrote two or three plays, and began to be
recognized, among those interested in literature, as possessing
individuality and promise. Morny, the emperor's all-powerful minister,
appointed him to be one of his secretaries,--a post which he held till
Morny's death in 1865,--and showed him no small kindness. He had put his
foot on the road to fortune.
In 1866 appeared _Lettres de mon moulin_, which won the attention of
many readers. The first of his longer books, _Le petit chose_ (1868),
did not, however, produce any very popular sensation. It is, in its main
feature, the story of his own earlier years told with much grace and
pathos. The year 1872 produced the famous _Aventures prodigieuses de
Tartarin de Tarascon_, and the three-act piece _L'Arlesienne_. But
_Fromont jeune et Risler aine_ (1874) at once took the world by storm.
It struck a note, not new certainly in English literature, but
comparatively new in French. Here was a writer who possessed the gift of
laughter and tears, a writer not only sensible to pathos and sorrow, but
also to moral beauty. He could create too. His characters were real and
also typical; the _rates_, the men who in life's battle had flashed in
the pan, were touched with a master hand. The book was alive. It gave
the illusion of a real world. _Jack_, the story of an illegitimate
child, a martyr to his mother's selfishness, which followed in 1876,
served only to deepen the same impression. Henceforward his career was
that of a very successful man of letters,--publishing novel on novel,
_Le Nabab_ (1877), _Les Rois en exil_ (1879), _Numa Roumestan_ (1881),
_Sapho_ (1884), _L'Immortel_ (1888),--and writing for the stage at
frequent intervals,--giving to the world his reminiscences in _Trente
ans de Paris_ (1887), and _Souvenirs d'un homme de lettres_ (1888).
These, with the three _Tartarins_,--Tartarin the mighty hunter, Tartarin
the mountaineer, Tartarin the colonist,--and the admirable short
stories, written for the most part before he had acquired fame and
fortune, constitute his life work.
Though Daudet defended himself from the charge of imitating Dickens, it
is difficult altogether to believe that so many similarities of spirit
and manner were quite unsought. What, however, was purely his own was
his style. It is a style that may rightly be called "_impressionist_,"
full of light and colour, not descriptive after the old fashion, but
flashing its intended effect by a masterly juxtaposition of words that
are like pigments. Nor does it convey, like the style of the Goncourts,
for example, a constant feeling of effort. It is full of felicity and
charm,--_un charmeur_ Zola has called him. An intimate friend of Edmond
de Goncourt (who died in his house), of Flaubert, of Zola, Daudet
belonged essentially to the naturalist school of fiction. His own
experiences, his surroundings, the men with whom he had been brought
into contact, various persons who had played a part, more or less
public, in Paris life--all passed into his art. But he vivified the
material supplied by his memory. His world has the great gift of life.
_L'Immortel_ is a bitter attack on the French Academy, to which august
body Daudet never belonged.
Daudet wrote some charming stories for children, among which may be
mentioned _La Belle Nivernaise_, the story of an old boat and her crew.
His married life--he married in 1867 Julia Allard--seems to have been
singularly happy. There was perfect intellectual harmony, and Madame
Daudet herself possessed much of his literary gift; she is known by her
_Impressions de nature et d'art_ (1879), _L'Enfance d'une Parisienne_
(1883), and by some literary studies written under the pseudonym of Karl
Steen. In his later years Daudet suffered from insomnia, failure of
health and consequent use of chloral. He died in Paris on the 17th of
December 1897.
The story of Daudet's earlier years is told in his brother Ernest
Daudet's _Mon frere et moi_. There is a good deal of autobiographical
detail in Daudet's _Trente ans de Paris_ and _Souvenirs d'un homme de
lettres_, and also scattered in his other books. The references to him
in the _Journal des Goncourt_ are numerous. See also L. A. Daudet,
_Alphonse Daudet_ (1898), and biographical and critical essays by R.
H. Sherard (1894); by A. Gerstmann (1883); by B. Diederich (1900); by
A. Hermant (1903), and a bibliography by J. Brivois (1895); also _The
Works of Alphonse Daudet_, translated by L. Ensor, H. Frith, E. Bartow
(1902, etc.). Criticism of Daudet is also to be found in F.
Brunetiere, _Le Roman naturaliste_ (new ed., 1897); J. Lemaitre, _Les
Contemporains_ (vols. ii. and iv.); G. Pellissier, _Le Mouvement
litteraire au XIX^e siecle_ (1890); A. Symons, _Studies in Prose and
Verse_ (1904). (F. T. M.)
DAULATABAD, a hill-fortress in Hyderabad state, India, about 10 m. N.W.
of the city of Aurangabad. The former city of Daulatabad (Deogiri) has
shrunk into a mere village, though to its earlier greatness witness is
still borne by its magnificent fortress, and by remains of public
buildings noble even in their decay. The fortress stands on a conical
rock crowning a hill that rises almost perpendicularly from the plain to
a height of some 600 ft. The outer wall, 2(3/4) m. in circumference, once
enclosed the ancient city of Deogiri (Devagiri), and between this and
the base of the upper fort are three lines of defences. The fort is a
place of extraordinary strength. The only means of access to the summit
is afforded by a narrow bridge, with passage for not more than two men
abreast, and a long gallery, excavated in the rock, which has for the
most part a very gradual upward slope, but about midway is intercepted
by a steep stair, the top of which is covered by a grating destined in
time of war to form the hearth of a huge fire kept burning by the
garrison above. Besides the fortifications Daulatabad contains several
notable monuments, of which the chief are the Chand Minar and the Chini
Mahal. The Chand Minar, considered one of the most remarkable specimens
of Mahommedan architecture in southern India, is a tower 210 ft. high
and 70 ft. in circumference at the base, and was originally covered with
beautiful Persian glazed tiles. It was erected in 1445 by Ala-ud-din
Bahmani to commemorate his capture of the fort. The Chini Mahal, or
China Palace, is the ruin of a building once of great beauty. In it Abul
Hasan, the last of the Kutb Shahi kings of Golconda, was imprisoned by
Aurangzeb in 1687.
Deogiri is said to have been founded c. A.D. 1187 by Bhillama I. the
prince who renounced his allegiance to the Chalukyas and established the
power of the Yadava dynasty in the west. In 1294 the fort was captured
by Ala-ud-din Khilji, and the rajas, so powerful that they were held by
the Mussulmans at Delhi to be the rulers of all the Deccan, were reduced
to pay tribute. The tribute falling into arrear, Deogiri was again
occupied by the Mahommedans under Malik Kafur, in 1307 and 1310, and in
1318 the last raja, Harpal, was flayed alive. Deogiri now became an
important base for the operations of the Mussulman conquering
expeditions southwards, and in 1339 Mahommed ben Tughlak Shah determined
to make it his capital, changed its name to Daulatabad ("Abode of
Prosperity"), and made arrangements for transferring to it the whole
population of Delhi. The project was interrupted by troubles which
summoned him to the north; during his absence the Mussulman governors of
the Deccan revolted; and Daulatabad itself fell into the hands of Zafar
Khan, the governor of Gulbarga. It remained in the hands of the Bahmanis
till 1526, when it was taken by the Nizam Shahis. It was captured by the
emperor Akbar, but in 1595 it again surrendered to Ahmad Nizam Shah of
Ahmednagar, on the fall of whose dynasty in 1607 it passed into the
hands of the usurper, the Nizam Shahi minister Malik Amber, originally
an Abyssinian slave, who was the founder of Kharki (the present
Aurangabad). His successors held it until their overthrow by Shah
Jahan, the Mogul emperor, in 1633; after which it remained in the
possession of the Delhi emperors until, after the death of Aurangzeb, it
fell to the first nizam of Hyderabad. Its glory, however, had already
decayed owing to the removal of the seat of government by the emperors
to Aurangabad.
DAUMIER, HONORE (1808-1879), French caricaturist and painter, was born
at Marseilles. He showed in his earliest youth an irresistible
inclination towards the artistic profession, which his father vainly
tried to check by placing him first with a _huissier_, and subsequently
with a bookseller. Having mastered the technique of lithography, Daumier
started his artistic career by producing plates for music publishers,
and illustrations for advertisements; these were followed by anonymous
work for publishers, in which he followed the style of Charlet and
displayed considerable enthusiasm for the Napoleonic legend. When, in
the reign of Louis Philippe, Philipon launched the comic journal, _La
Caricature_, Daumier joined its staff, which included such powerful
artists as Deveria, Raffet and Grandville, and started upon his
pictorial campaign of scathing satire upon the foibles of the
bourgeoisie, the corruption of the law and the incompetence of a
blundering government. His caricature of the king as "Gargantua" led to
Daumier's imprisonment for six months at Ste Pelagie in 1832. The
publication of _La Caricature_ was discontinued soon after, but Philipon
provided a new field for Daumier's activity when he founded the
_Charivari_. For this journal Daumier produced his famous social
caricatures, in which bourgeois society is held up to ridicule in the
figure of Robert Macaire, the hero of a then popular melodrama. Another
series, "_L'histoire ancienne_," was directed against the
pseudo-classicism which held the art of the period in fetters. In 1848
Daumier embarked again on his political campaign, still in the service
of _Charivari_, which he left in 1860 and rejoined in 1864. In spite of
his prodigious activity in the field of caricature--the list of
Daumier's lithographed plates compiled in 1904 numbers no fewer than
3958--he found time for flight in the higher sphere of painting. Except
for the searching truthfulness of his vision and the powerful directness
of his brushwork, it would be difficult to recognize the creator of
_Robert Macaire_, of _Les Bas bleus_, _Les Bohemiens de Paris_, and the
_Masques_, in the paintings of "Christ and His Apostles" at the Ryks
Museum in Amsterdam, or in his "Good Samaritan," "Don Quixote and Sancho
Panza," "Christ Mocked," or even in the sketches in the Ionides
Collection at South Kensington. But as a painter, Daumier, one of the
pioneers of naturalism, was before his time, and did not meet with
success until in 1878, a year before his death, when M. Durand-Ruel
collected his works for exhibition at his galleries and demonstrated the
full range of the genius of the man who has been well called the
Michelangelo of caricature. At the time of this exhibition Daumier,
totally blind, was living in a cottage at Valmondois, which was placed
at his disposal by Corot, and where he breathed his last in 1879. An
important exhibition of his works was held at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts
in 1900.
His life and art were made the subject of an important volume by
Arsene Alexandre in 1888; see also Gustave Geffroy, _Daumier_ (Paris,
Libraire de l'Art), and Henri Frantz and Octave Uzanne, _Daumier and
Gavarni_ (London, _The Studio_, 1904), with a large selection of the
artist's work.
DAUN (DHAUN), LEOPOLD JOSEF, COUNT VON (1705-1766), prince of Thiano,
Austrian field marshal, was born at Vienna on the 24th of September
1705. He was intended for the church, but his natural inclination for
the army, in which his father and grandfather had been distinguished
generals, proved irresistible. In 1718 he served in the campaign in
Sicily, in his father's regiment. He had already risen to the rank of
colonel when he saw further active service in Italy and on the Rhine in
the War of the Polish Succession (1734-35). He continued to add to his
distinctions in the war against the Turks (1737-39), in which he
attained the rank of a general officer. In the War of the Austrian
Succession (1740-42), Daun, already a lieutenant field marshal in rank,
distinguished himself by the careful leadership which was afterwards his
greatest military quality. He was present at Chotusitz and Prague, and
led the advanced guard of Khevenhuller's army in the victorious Danube
campaign of 1743. Field Marshal Traun, who succeeded Khevenhuller in
1744, thought equally highly of Daun, and entrusted him with the
rearguard of the Austrian army when it escaped from the French to attack
Frederick the Great. He held important commands in the battles of
Hohenfriedberg and Soor, and in the same year (1745) was promoted to the
rank of _Feldzeugmeister_. After this he served in the Low Countries,
and was present at the battle of Val. He was highly valued by Maria
Theresa, who made him commandant of Vienna and a knight of the Golden
Fleece, and in 1754 he was elevated to the rank of field marshal.
During the interval of peace that preceded the Seven Years' War he was
engaged in carrying out an elaborate scheme for the reorganization of
the Austrian army; and it was chiefly through his instrumentality that
the military academy was established at Wiener-Neustadt in 1751. He was
not actively employed in the first campaigns of the war, but in 1757 he
was placed at the head of the army which was raised to relieve Prague.
On the 18th of June 1757 Daun defeated Frederick for the first time in
his career in the desperately fought battle of Kolin (q.v.). In
commemoration of this brilliant exploit the queen immediately instituted
a military order bearing her name, of which Daun was nominated first
grand cross. The union of the relieving army with the forces of Prince
Charles at Prague reduced Daun to the position of second in command, and
as such he took part in the pursuit of the Prussians and the victory of
Breslau. Frederick now reappeared and won the most brilliant victory of
the age at Leuthen. Daun was present on that field, but was not held
accountable for the disaster, and when Prince Charles resigned his
command, Daun was appointed in his place. With the campaign of 1758
began the war of manoeuvre in which Daun, if he missed, through
over-caution, many opportunities of crushing the Prussians, at least
maintained a steady and cool resistance to the fiery strategy of
Frederick. In 1758 Major-General Loudon, acting under Daun's
instructions, forced the king to raise the siege of Olmutz, and later in
the same year Daun himself surprised Frederick at Hochkirch and
inflicted a severe defeat upon him (October 14th). In the following year
the war of manoeuvre continued, and on the 20th and 21st of November he
surrounded the entire corps of General Finck at Maxen, forcing the
Prussians to surrender. These successes were counterbalanced in the
following year by the defeat of Loudon at Liegnitz, which was attributed
to the dilatoriness of Daun, and Daun's own defeat in the great battle
of Torgau (q.v.). In this engagement Daun was so severely wounded that
he had to return to Vienna to recruit.
He continued to command until the end of the war, and afterwards worked
with the greatest energy at the reorganization of the imperial forces.
In 1762 he had been appointed president of the _Hofkriegsrath_. He died
on the 5th of February 1766. By the order of Maria Theresa a monument to
his memory was erected in the church of the Augustinians, with an
inscription styling him the "saviour of her states." In 1888 the 56th
regiment of Austrian infantry was named after him. As a general Daun has
been reproached for the dilatoriness of his operations, but wariness was
not misplaced in opposing a general like Frederick, who was quick and
unexpected in his movements beyond all precedent. Less defence perhaps
may be made for him on the score of inability to profit by a victory.
See _Der deutsche Fabius Cunctator, oder Leben u. Thaten S. E. des H.
Leopold Reichsgrafen v. Dhaun K.K.F.M._ (Frankfort and Leipzig,
1759-1760), and works dealing with the wars of the period.
DAUNOU, PIERRE CLAUDE FRANCOIS (1761-1840), French statesman and
historian, was born at Boulogne-sur-Mer, and after a brilliant career in
the school of the Oratorians there, joined the order in Paris in 1777.
He was professor in various seminaries from 1780 till 1787, when he was
ordained priest. He was already known in literary circles by several
essays and poems, when the revolution opened a wider career. He threw
himself with ardour into the struggle for liberty, and refused to be
silenced in his advocacy of the civil constitution of the clergy by the
offer of high office in the church. Elected to the Convention by
Pas-le-Calais, he associated himself with the Girondists, but strongly
opposed the death sentence on the king. He took little part in the
struggle against the Mountain, but was involved in the overthrow of his
friends, and was imprisoned for a year. In December 1794 he returned to
the Convention, and was the principal author of the constitution of the
year III. It seems to have been due to his Girondist ideas that the
Ancients were given the right of convoking the _corps legislatif_
outside Paris, an expedient which made possible Napoleon's _coup d'etat_
of the 18th and 19th Brumaire. The creation of the Institute was also
due to Daunou, who drew up the plan for its organization. His energy was
largely responsible for the suppression of the royalist insurrection of
the 13th Vendemiaire, and the important place he occupied at the
beginning of the Directory is indicated by the fact that he was elected
by twenty-seven departments as member of the Council of Five Hundred,
and became its first president. He had himself set the age qualification
of the directors at forty, and thus debarred himself as candidate, as he
was only thirty-four. The direction of affairs having passed into the
hands of Talleyrand and his associates, Daunou turned once more to
literature, but in 1798 he was sent to Rome to organize the republic
there, and again, almost against his will, he lent his aid to Napoleon
in the preparation of the constitution of the year VIII. His attitude
towards Napoleon was not lacking in independence, but in this
controversy with the pope, the emperor was able again to secure from him
the learned treatise _Sur la puissance temporelle du Pape_ (1809). Still
he took little part in the new regime, with which at heart he had no
sympathy, and turned more and more to literature. At the Restoration he
was deprived of the post of archivist of the empire, which he had held
from 1807, but from 1819 to 1830 (when he again became archivist of the
kingdom) he held the chair of history and ethics at the College de
France, and his courses were among the most famous of that age of public
lectures. During the reign of Louis Philippe he received many honours.
In 1839 he was made a peer. He died in 1840.
In politics Daunou was a Girondist without combativeness; a confirmed
republican, who lent himself always to the policy of conciliation, but
whose probity remained unchallenged. He belonged essentially to the
centre, and lacked both the genius and the temperament which would
secure for him a commanding place in a revolutionary era. As an
historian his breadth of view is remarkable for his time; for although
thoroughly imbued with the classical spirit of the 18th century, he was
able to do justice to the middle ages. His _Discours sur l'etat des
lettres au XIII^e siecle_, in the sixteenth volume of the _Histoire
litteraire de France_, is a remarkable contribution to that vast
collection, especially as coming from an author so profoundly learned in
the ancient classics. Daunou's lectures at the College de France,
collected and published after his death, fill twenty volumes (_Cours
d'etudes historiques_, 1842-1846). They treat principally of the
criticism of sources and the proper method of writing history, and
occupy an important place in the evolution of the scientific study of
history in France. All his works were written in the most elegant style
and chaste diction; but apart from his share in the editing of the
_Historiens de la France_, they were mostly in the form of separate
articles on literary and historical subjects. Personally Daunou was
reserved and somewhat austere, preserving in his habits a strange
mixture of bourgeois and monk. His indefatigable work as archivist in
the time when Napoleon was transferring so many treasures to Paris is
not his least claim to the gratitude of scholars.
See Mignet, _Notice historique sur la vie et les travaux de Daunou_
(Paris, 1843); Taillandier, _Documents bibliographiques sur Daunou_
(Paris, 1847), including a full list of his works; Sainte-Beuve,
_Daunou_ in his _Portraits Contemporains_, t. iii. (unfavourable and
somewhat unfair).
DAUPHIN (Lat. _Delphinus_), an ancient feudal title in France, borne
only by the counts and dauphins of Vienne, the dauphins of Auvergne, and
from 1364 by the eldest sons of the kings of France. The origin of this
curious title is obscure and has been the subject of much ingenious
controversy; but it now seems clear that it was in the first instance a
proper name. Among the Norsemen, and in the countries colonized by them,
the name Dolphin or Dolfin (_dolfr_, "a wound") was fairly common, e.g.
in the north of England; thus a Dolfin is mentioned among the
tenants-in-chief in Domesday Book, and there was a Dolphin, lord of
Carlisle, towards the end of the 11th century. It has thus been
conjectured by some that the dauphins of Vienne derived their title from
Teutonic sources through Germany. But in the south, too, the name--not
necessarily derived from the same root--was not unknown, though
exceedingly rare, and was moreover illustrated by two conspicuous
figures in the Catholic martyrology: St Delphinus, bishop of Bordeaux
from 380 to 404, and St Annemundus, surnamed Dalfinus, bishop of Lyons
from c. 650 to 657. Whatever its origin, this name was borne by Guigo,
or Guigue IV. (d. 1142), count of Albon and Grenoble, as an additional
name, during the lifetime of his father, and was also adopted by his son
Guigue V. Beatrice, daughter and heiress of Guigue V., whose second
husband was Hugh III., duke of Burgundy, bestowed the name on their son
Andre, to recall his descent from the ancient house of the counts of
Albon, and in the charters he is called sometimes Andreas Dalphinus,
sometimes Dalphinus simply, but his style is still "count of Albon and
Vienne." His successors Guigue VI. (d. 1270) and John I. (d. 1282) call
themselves sometimes Delphinus, sometimes Delphini, the name being
obviously treated as a patronymic, and in the latter form it was borne
by the sons of the reigning "dauphin." But even under Guigue VI.
foreigners had begun to confuse the name with a title of dignity, an
imperial diploma of 1248 describing Guigue as "Guigo Dalphinus
Viennensis."
It was not until the third dynasty, founded by the marriage of Anne,
heiress of John I., with Humbert, lord of La Tour du Pin, that "dauphin"
became definitely established as a title. Humbert not only assumed the
name of Delphinus, but styled himself regularly Dauphin of the Viennois
(Dalphinus Viennensis), and in a treaty concluded in 1285 between
Humbert and Robert, duke of Burgundy, the word _delphinatus_ (Dauphine)
appears for the first time, as a synonym for _comitatus_ (county). In
1349 Humbert II., the last of his race, sold Dauphine to Charles of
Valois, who, when he became king of France in 1364, transferred it to
his eldest son. From that time the eldest sons of the kings of France
were always either actual or titular dauphins of the Viennois. The
"canting arms" of a dolphin, which they quartered with the royal _fleurs
de lys_, were originally assumed by Dauphin, count of Clermont, instead
of the arms of Auvergne (the earliest extant example is appended to a
deed of 1199), and from him they were borrowed by the counts of the
Viennois. Guigue VI. used this device on his secret seal from his
accession, the earliest extant example dating from 1237, but, though no
specimens have survived, M. Prudhomme thinks it probable that the
dolphin was also borne by Andre Dauphin. It was also assumed by Guigue
V., count of Forez (1203-1241), a descendant of Guigue Raymond of the
Viennois, count of Forez, in right of his wife Ida Raymonde. It is thus
abundantly clear that the name of Dauphin was not assumed from the
armorial device, but vice versa.
The eldest son of the French king was sometimes called "the king
dauphin" (_le roy daulphin_), to distinguish him from the dauphin of
Auvergne, who was known, since Auvergne became an appanage of the royal
house, as "the prince dauphin." The dauphinate of Auvergne, which is to
be distinguished from the county, dates from 1155, when William VII.,
count of Auvergne, was deposed by his uncle William VIII. "the Old."
William VII. had married a daughter of Guigue IV. Dauphin, after whom
their son was named Dauphin (Delphinus). The name continued, as in
Viennois, as a patronymic, and was not used as a title until 1281, when
Robert II., count of Clermont, in his will, styles himself for the first
time Dauphin of Auvergne (_Alvernie delphinus_) for the portion of the
county of Auvergne left to his house. In 1428 Jeanne, heiress of the
dauphin Beraud III., married Louis de Bourbon, count of Montpensier (d.
1486), thus bringing the dauphinate into the royal house of France. It
was annexed to the crown in 1693.
See A. Prudhomme, "De l'origine et du sens des mots dauphin et
dauphine" in _Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartes_, liv. an. 1893
(Paris, 1893).
DAUPHINE, one of the old provinces (the name being still in current use
in the country) of pre-Revolutionary France, in the south-east portion
of France, between Provence and Savoy; since 1790 it forms the
departments of the Isere, the Drome and the Hautes Alpes.
After the death of the last king of Burgundy, Rudolf III., in 1032, the
territories known later as Dauphine (as part of his realm) reverted to
the far-distant emperor. Much confusion followed, out of which the
counts of Albon (between Valence and Vienne) gradually came to the
front. The first dynasty ended in 1162 with Guigue V., whose daughter
and heiress, Beatrice, carried the possessions of her house to her
husband, Hugh III., duke of Burgundy. Their son, Andre, continued the
race, this second dynasty making many territorial acquisitions, among
them (by marriage) the Embrunais and the Gapencais in 1232. In 1282 the
second dynasty ended in another heiress, Anna, who carried all to her
husband, Humbert, lord of La Tour du Pin (between Lyons and Grenoble).
The title of the chief of the house was Count (later Dauphin) of the
Viennois, _not_ of Dauphine. (For the origin of the terms Dauphin and
Dauphine see DAUPHIN.) Humbert II. (1333-1349), grandson of the heiress
Anna, was the last independent Dauphin, selling his dominions in 1349 to
Charles of Valois, who on his accession to the throne of France as
Charles V. bestowed Dauphine on his eldest son, and the title was borne
by all succeeding eldest sons of the kings of France. In 1422 the Diois
and the Valentinois, by the will of the last count, passed to the eldest
son of Charles VI., and in 1424 were annexed to the Dauphine. Louis
(1440-1461), later Louis XI. of France, was the last Dauphin who
occupied a semi-independent position, Dauphine being annexed to the
crown in 1456. The suzerainty of the emperor (who in 1378 had named the
Dauphin "Imperial Vicar" within Dauphine and Provence) gradually died
out. In the 16th century the names of the reformer Guillaume Farel
(1489-1565) and of the duke of Lesdiguieres (1543-1626) are prominent in
Dauphine history. The "States" of Dauphine (dating from about the middle
of the 14th century) were suspended by Louis XIII. in 1628, but their
unauthorized meeting (on the 21st of July 1788) in the tennis court
(_Salle du Jeu de Paume_) of the castle of Vizille, near Grenoble, was
one of the earliest premonitory signs of the great French Revolution of
1789. It was at Laffrey, near Grenoble, that Napoleon (March 7th, 1815)
was first acclaimed by his old soldiers sent to arrest him.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--J. Brun-Durand, _Dictionnaire topographique du
departement de la Drome_ (Paris, 1891); Jules Chevalier, _Essai
historique sur l'eglise et la ville de Die_, Montelimar and Valence (2
vols., 1888 and 1896); W. A. B. Coolidge, H. Duhamel and Felix Perrin,
_Climbers' Guide to the Central Alps of the Dauphiny_ (a revision of a
French work by the same, issued at Grenoble in 1887), London, 1892
(new ed. 1905); J. J. Guiffrey, _Histoire de la reunion du Dauphine a
la France_ (Paris, 1868); Joanne, _Dauphine_ (Paris, 1905); A.
Prudhomme, _Histoire de Grenoble_ (Grenoble, 1888); Ib., "De l'origine
des mots 'Dauphin' et Dauphine" (article in vol. liv. (1893) of the
_Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartes_); A. Rochas, _Biographie du
Dauphine_ (2 vols., Paris, 1856); J. Roman, _Dictionnaire
topographique_ (Paris, 1884); _Tableau historique_ (Paris, 2 vols.,
1887 and 1890); and _Repertoire archeologique du departement des
Hautes-Alpes_ (Paris, 1888); J. Roman, _Histoire de la ville de Gap_
(Gap, 1892); A. De Terrebasse, _Notice sur les Dauphins de Viennois_
(Vienne, 1875); J. M. De Valbonnais, _Histoire de Dauphine_ (2 vols.,
Geneva, 1722); J. A. Felix Faure, _Les Assemblees de Vizille et de
Romans_, 1788 (Paris, 1887); O. Chenavas, _La Revolution de 1788 en
Dauphine_ (Grenoble, 1888); C. Lory, _Description geologique du
Dauphine_ (Paris, 1860). (W. A. B. C.)
DAURAT (or DORAT), JEAN (in Lat. AURATUS), (1508-1588), French poet and
scholar, and member of the Pleiade, was born at Limoges in 1508. His
name was originally Dinemandy. He belonged to a noble family, and, after
studying at the college of Limoges, came up to Paris to be presented to
Francis I., who made him tutor to his pages. He rapidly gained an
immense reputation as a classical scholar. As a private tutor in the
house of Lazare de Baif, he had J. A. de Baif for his pupil. His son,
Louis, showed great precocity, and at the age of ten translated into
French verse one of his father's Latin pieces; his poems were published
with his father's. Jean Daurat became the director of the College de
Coqueret, where he had among his pupils, besides Baif, Ronsard, Remy,
Belleau and Pontus de Tyard. Joachim du Bellay was added by Ronsard to
this group; and these five young poets, under the direction of Daurat,
formed a society for the reformation of the French language and
literature. They increased their number to seven by the initiation of
the dramatist Etienne Jodelle, and thereupon they named themselves La
Pleiade, in emulation of the seven Greek poets of Alexandria. The
election of Daurat as their president proved the weight of his personal
influence, and the value his pupils set on the learning to which he
introduced them, but as a writer of French verse he is the least
important of the seven. Meanwhile he collected around him a sort of
Academy, and stimulated the students on all sides to a passionate study
of Greek and Latin poetry. He himself wrote incessantly in both those
languages, and was styled the Modern Pindar. His influence extended
beyond the bounds of his own country, and he was famous as a scholar in
England, Italy and Germany. In 1556 he was appointed professor of Greek
at the College Royale, a post which he continued to hold until, in 1567,
he resigned it in favour of his nephew, Nicolas Goulu. Charles IX. gave
him the title of _poeta regius_. His flow of language was the wonder of
his time; he is said to have composed more than 15,000 Greek and Latin
verses. The best of these he published at Paris in 1586 as _J. Aurati
Lemovicis poetae et interpretis regii poemata_. He died at Paris on the
1st of November 1588, having survived all his illustrious pupils of the
Pleiade, except Pontus de Tyard. He was a little, restless man, of
untiring energy, rustic in manner and appearance. His unequalled
personal influence over the most graceful minds of his age gives him an
importance in the history of literature for which his own somewhat vapid
writings do not fully account.
The _Oeuvres poetiques_ in the vernacular of Jean Daurat were edited
(1875) with biographical notice and bibliography by Ch. Marty-Laveaux
in his _Pleiade francaise_.
DAVENANT, CHARLES (1656-1714), English economist, eldest son of Sir
William Davenant, the poet, was born in London, and educated at Cheam
grammar school and Balliol College, Oxford, but left the university
without taking a degree. At the age of nineteen he had composed a
tragedy, _Circe_, which met with some success, but he soon turned his
attention to law, and having taken the degree of LL.D., he became a
member of Doctors' Commons. He was member of parliament successively for
St Ives, Cornwall, and for Great Bedwyn. He held the post of
commissioner of excise from 1683 to 1689, and that of inspector-general
of exports and imports from 1705 till his death in 1714. He was also
secretary to the commission appointed to treat for the union with
Scotland. As an economist, he must be classed as a strong supporter of
the mercantile theory, and in his economic pamphlets--as distinct from
his political writings--he takes up an eclectic position, recommending
governmental restrictions on colonial commerce as strongly as he
advocates freedom of exchange at home. Of his writings, a complete
edition of which was published in London in 1771, the following are the
more important:--_An Essay on the East India Trade_ (1697); _Two
Discourses on the Public Revenues and Trade of England_ (1698); _An
Essay on the probable means of making the people gainers in the balance
of Trade_ (1699); _A Discourse on Grants and Resumptions and Essays on
the Balance of Power_ (1701).
DAVENANT (or D'AVENANT), SIR WILLIAM (1606-1668), English poet and
dramatist, was baptized on the 3rd of March 1606; he was born at the
Crown Inn, Oxford, of which his father, a wealthy vintner, was
proprietor. It was stated that Shakespeare always stopped at this house
in passing through the city of Oxford, and out of his known or rumoured
admiration of the hostess, a very fine woman, there sprang a scandalous
story which attributed Davenant's paternity to Shakespeare, a legend
which there is reason to believe Davenant himself encouraged, but which
later criticism has cast aside as spurious. In 1621 the vintner was made
mayor of Oxford, and in the same year his son left the grammar school of
All Saints, where his master had been Edward Sylvester, and was entered
an undergraduate of Lincoln College, Oxford. He did not stay at the
university, however, long enough to take a degree, but was hurried away
to appear at court as a page, in the retinue of the gorgeous duchess of
Richmond. From her service he passed into that of Fulke Greville, Lord
Brooke, in whose house he remained until the murder of that eminent man
in 1628. This blow threw him upon the world, not altogether without
private means, but greatly in need of a profitable employment.
He turned to the stage for subsistence, and in 1629 produced his first
play, the tragedy of _Albovine_. It was not a very brilliant
performance, but it pleased the town, and decided the poet to pursue a
dramatic career. The next year saw the production at Blackfriars of _The
Cruel Brother_, a tragedy, and _The Just Italian_, a tragi-comedy. Inigo
Jones, the court architect, for whom Ben Jonson had long supplied the
words of masques and complimentary pieces, quarrelled with his great
colleague in the year 1634, and applied to William Davenant for verses.
The result was _The Temple of Love_, performed by the queen and her
ladies at Whitehall on Shrove Tuesday, 1634, and printed in that year.
Another masque, _The Triumphs of the Prince D'Amour_, followed in 1636.
The poet returned to the legitimate drama by the publication of the
tragi-comedy of _The Platonic Lovers_, and the famous comedy of _The
Wits_, in 1636, the latter of which, however, had been licensed in 1633.
The masque of _Britannica Triumphans_ (1637) brought him into some
trouble, for it was suppressed as a punishment for its first performance
having been arranged for a Sunday. By this time Davenant had, however,
thoroughly ingratiated himself with the court; and on the death of Ben
Jonson in 1637 he was rewarded with the office of poet-laureate, to the
exclusion of Thomas May, who considered himself entitled to the honour.
It was shortly after this event that Davenant collected his minor
lyrical pieces in a volume entitled _Madagascar and other Poems_ (1638);
and in 1639 he became manager of the new theatre in Drury Lane. The
civil war, however, put a check upon this prosperous career; and he was
among the most active partisans of royalty through the whole of that
struggle for supremacy.
As early as May 1642, Davenant was accused before the Long Parliament of
being mainly concerned in a scheme to seduce the army to overthrow the
Commons. He was accordingly apprehended at Faversham, and imprisoned for
two months in London; he then attempted to escape to France, and
succeeded in reaching Canterbury, where he was recaptured. Escaping a
second time, he made good his way to the queen, with whom he remained in
France until he volunteered to carry over to England some military
stores for the army of his old friend the earl of Newcastle, by whom he
was induced to enter the service as lieutenant-general of ordnance. He
acquitted himself with so much bravery and skill that, after the siege
of Gloucester, in 1643, he was knighted by the king. After the battle of
Naseby he retired to Paris, where he became a Roman Catholic, and spent
some months in the composition of his epic poem of _Gondibert_. In 1646
he was sent by the queen on a mission to Charles I., then at Newcastle,
to advise him to "part with the church for his peace and security." The
king dismissed him with some sharpness, and Davenant returned to Paris,
where he was the guest of Lord Jermyn. In 1650 he took the command of a
colonizing expedition that set sail from France to Virginia, but was
captured in the Channel by a parliamentary man-of-war, which took him
back to the Isle of Wight. Imprisoned in Cowes castle until 1651, he
tempered the discomfort and suspense of his condition by continuing the
composition of _Gondibert_. He was sent up to the Tower to await his
trial for high treason, but just as the storm was about to break over
his head, all cleared away. It is believed that the personal
intercession of Milton led to this result. Another account is that he
was released by the desire of two aldermen of York, once his prisoners,
whom he had allowed to escape. Davenant, released from prison,
immediately published _Gondibert_, the work on which his fame mainly
rests, a chivalric epic in the four-line stanza which Sir John Davies
had made popular by his _Nosce teipsum_, the influence of which is
strongly marked in the philosophical passages of _Gondibert_. It is a
cumbrous, dull production, but is relieved with a multitude of fine and
felicitous passages, and lends itself most happily to quotation.
During the civil war one of his plays had been printed, the tragedy of
_The Unfortunate Lovers_, in 1643. One of his best plays, _Love and
Honour_, was published in 1649, but appears to have been acted long
before. He found that there were many who desired him to recommence his
theatrical career. Such a step, however, was absolutely forbidden by
Puritan law. Davenant, therefore, by the help of some influential
friends, obtained permission to open a sort of theatre at Rutland House,
in Charterhouse Yard, where, on the 21st of May 1656, he began a series
of representations, which he called _operas_, as an inoffensive term.
This word was then first introduced into the English language. The
opening piece was a kind of dialogue defending the drama in the
abstract. This was followed by his own _Siege of Rhodes_, printed the
same year, which was performed with stage decorations and machinery of a
kind hitherto quite unthought of in England. Two other innovations in
its production were the introduction of recitative and the appearance of
a woman, Mrs Coleman, on the stage. He continued until the Restoration
to produce ephemeral works of this kind, only one of which, _The Cruelty
of the Spaniards in Peru_, in 1658, was of sufficient literary merit to
survive. In 1660 he had the infinite satisfaction of being able to
preserve the life of that glorious poet who had, nine years before,
saved his own from a not less imminent danger. The mutual relations of
Milton and Davenant do honour to the generosity of two men who,
sincerely opposed in politics, knew how to forget their personal anger
in their common love of letters. In 1659 Davenant suffered a short
imprisonment for complicity in Sir George Booth's revolt. Under Charles
II. Davenant flourished in the dramatic world; he opened a new theatre
in Lincoln's Inn Fields, which he called the Duke's; and he introduced a
luxury and polish into the theatrical life which it had never before
known in England. Under his management, the great actors of the
Restoration, Betterton and his coevals, took their peculiar French style
and appearance; and the ancient simplicity of the English stage was
completely buried under the tinsel of decoration and splendid scenery.
Davenant brought out six new plays in the Duke's Theatre, _The Rivals_
(1668), an adaptation of _The Two Noble Kinsmen_, which Davenant never
owned, _The Man's the Master_ (1669), comedies translated from Scarron,
_News from Plymouth_, _The Distresses_, _The Siege_, _The Fair
Favourite_, tragi-comedies, all of which were printed after his death,
and only one of which survived their author on the stage. He died at his
house in Lincoln's Inn Fields on the night of the 7th of April 1668, and
two days afterwards was buried in Poets' Corner, Westminster Abbey, with
the inscription "O rare Sir William Davenant!" In 1672 his writings were
collected in folio. His last work had been to travesty Shakespeare's
_Tempest_ in company with Dryden.
The personal character, adventures and fame of Davenant, and more
especially his position as a leading reformer, or rather debaser, of the
stage, have always given him a prominence in the history of literature
which his writings hardly justify. His plays are utterly unreadable, and
his poems are usually stilted and unnatural. With Cowley he marks the
process of transition from the poetry of the imagination to the poetry
of the intelligence; but he had far less genius than Cowley, and his
influence on English drama must be condemned as wholly deplorable.
(E. G.)
DAVENPORT, EDWARD LOOMIS (1816-1877), American actor, born in Boston,
made his first appearance on the stage in Providence in support of
Junius Brutus Booth. Afterwards he went to England, where he supported
Mrs Anna Cora Mowatt (Ritchie) (1819-1870), Macready and others. In 1854
he was again in the United States, appearing in Shakespearian plays and
in dramatizations of Dickens's novels. As Bill Sykes he was especially
successful, and his Sir Giles Overreach and Brutus were also greatly
admired. He died at Canton, Pennsylvania, on the 1st of September 1877.
In 1849 he had married Fanny Vining (Mrs Charles Gill) (d. 1891), an
English actress also in Mrs Mowatt's company. Their daughter FANNY (LILY
GIPSY) DAVENPORT (1850-1898) appeared in America at the age of twelve as
the king of Spain in _Faint Heart Never Won Fair Lady_. Later (1869) she
was a member of Daly's company; and afterwards, with a company of her
own, acted with especial success in Sardou's _Fedora_ (1883),
_Cleopatra_ (1890), and similar plays. Her last appearance was on the
25th of March 1898, shortly before her death.
DAVENPORT, ROBERT (fl. 1623-1639), English dramatist, is mentioned as
the author of a play licensed in 1624 under the title of _Henry I._ In
1653 _Henry I. and Henry II._ was entered at Stationers' Hall by
Humphrey Moseley with a second part said to be the work of Davenport and
Shakespeare. Of this play or plays nothing has been discovered, but
_King John and Matilda_ (printed 1655), which probably dates from about
the same time, has survived. Throughout the play, as in its closing
scene quoted by Charles Lamb in his _Dramatic Specimens_, there is much
"passion and poetry" which saves the piece from being classed as pure
melodrama. _The City-Night-Cap_ was licensed in 1624, but not printed
until 1661. The underplot of this unsavoury play was borrowed from
Cervantes and Boccaccio, and Mrs Aphra Behn's _Amorous Prince_ (1671) is
an adaptation from it. _A New Tricke to Cheat the Divell_ (printed 1639)
is a farcical comedy, which contains among other things the idea of the
popular supper story which reappears in Hans Andersen's _Little Claus
and Big Claus_. As told by Davenport the story closely resembles the
_Scottish Freires of Berwick_, which was printed in 1603. Three other
plays entered in the Stationers' Register as Davenport's are lost, and
he collaborated in two plays with Thomas Drue.
Davenport's plays were reprinted by A. H. Bullen in _Old English
Plays_ (new series, 1890). The volume includes two didactic poems,
which first saw the light in 1623.
DAVENPORT, a city and the county seat of Scott county, Iowa, U.S.A., on
the Mississippi river, opposite Rock Island, Illinois, with which it is
connected by two fine bridges and by a ferry. It is the third largest
city in the state. Pop. (1890) 26,872; (1900) 35,254, including 8479
foreign-born (6111 German), and 19,230 of foreign parentage (13,294
German); (1905, state census) 39,797; (1910) 43,028. Davenport is served
by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul,
the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Iowa & Illinois (interurban),
and the Davenport, Rock Island & North Western railways; opposite the
city is the western terminus of the Illinois and Mississippi, or
Hennepin, Canal (which connects the Mississippi and Illinois rivers).
Davenport lies on the slope of a bluff affording extensive views of
landscape and river scenery. In the city are an excellent public
library, an Academy of Sciences, several turn-halls and other German
social organizations, the Iowa soldiers' orphans' home, Brown business
college, and several minor Roman Catholic institutions. Davenport is an
episcopal see of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Episcopal
churches. The city has a large commerce and trade by water and rail in
coal and grain, which are produced in the vicinity, is of special
importance. With Rock Island and Moline it forms one great commercial
unit. Among Davenport's manufactures are the products of foundries and
machine shops, and of flouring, grist and planing mills; glucose syrup
and products; locomotives, steel cars and car parts, washing machines,
waggons, carriages, agricultural implements, buttons, macaroni, crackers
and brooms. The value of the total factory product for 1905 was
$13,695,978, an increase of 38.7% over that of 1900. Davenport was
founded in 1835, under the leadership of Colonel George Davenport; it
was incorporated as a town in 1838, and was chartered as a city in 1851.
DAVENTRY, a market town and municipal borough in the Southern
parliamentary division of Northamptonshire, England, 74 m. N.W. from
London by the London & North Western railway. Pop. (1901) 3780. It is
picturesquely situated on a sloping site in a rich undulating country.
On the adjacent Borough Hill are extensive earthworks, and the discovery
of remains here and at Burnt Walls, immediately south, proves the
existence of a considerable Roman station. The chief industry of the
town is the manufacture of boots and shoes. The borough is under a
mayor, four aldermen and twelve councillors. Area, 3633 acres.
In spite of the Roman remains on Borough Hill, nothing is known of the
town itself until the time of the Domesday Survey, when the manor
consisting of eight hides belonged to the countess Judith, the
Conqueror's niece. According to tradition, Daventry was created a
borough by King John, but there is no extant charter before that of
Elizabeth in 1576, by which the town was incorporated under the name of
the bailiff, burgesses and commonalty of the borough of Daventry. The
bailiff was to be chosen every year in the Moot Hall and to be assisted
by fourteen principal burgesses and a recorder. James I. confirmed this
charter in 1605-1606, and Charles II. in 1674-1675 granted a new
charter. The "quo warranto" rolls show that a market every Wednesday and
a fair on St Augustine's day were granted to Simon son of Walter by King
John. The charter of 1576 confirms this market and fair to the
burgesses, and grants them two new fairs each continuing for two days,
on Tuesday after Easter and on the feast of St Matthew the Apostle.
Wednesday is still the market day. The town was an important coaching
centre, and there was a large local industry in the manufacture of
whips. During the civil wars Daventry was the headquarters of Charles I.
in the summer of 1645, immediately before the battle of Naseby, at which
he was defeated. A Cluniac priory founded here shortly after the
Conquest has left no remains.
DAVEY OF FERNHURST, HORACE DAVEY, BARON (1833-1907), English judge, son
of Peter Davey, of Horton, Bucks, was born on the 30th of August 1833,
and educated at Rugby and University College, Oxford. He took a double
first-class in classics and mathematics, was senior mathematical scholar
and Eldon law scholar, and was elected a fellow of his college. In 1861
he was called to the Bar at Lincoln's Inn, and read in the chambers of
Mr (afterwards Vice-Chancellor) Wickens. Devoting himself to the
Chancery side, he soon acquired a large practice, and in 1875 became a
Q.C. In 1880 he was returned to parliament as a Liberal for
Christchurch, Hants, but lost his seat in 1885. On Gladstone's return to
power in 1886 he was appointed solicitor-general and was knighted, but
had no seat in the House, being defeated at both Ipswich and Stockport
in 1886; in 1888 he found a seat at Stockton-on-Tees, but was rejected
by that constituency in 1892. As an equity lawyer Sir Horace Davey
ranked among the finest intellects and the most subtle pleaders ever
known at the English bar. He was standing counsel to the university of
Oxford, and senior counsel to the Charity Commissioners, and was engaged
in all the important Chancery suits of his time. Among the chief leading
cases in which he took a prominent part were those of _The Mogul
Steamship Company_ v. _M'Gregor_, 1892, _Boswell_ v. _Coaks_, 1884,
_Erlanger_ v. _New Sombrero Company_, 1878, and the _Ooregum Gold Mines
Company_ v. _Roper_, 1892; he was counsel for the promoters in the trial
of the bishop of Lincoln, and leading counsel in the Berkeley peerage
case. In 1862 he married Miss Louisa Donkin, who, with two sons and four
daughters, survived him. In 1893 he was raised to the bench as a lord
justice of appeal, and in the next year was made a lord of appeal in
ordinary and a life peer. He died in London on the 20th of February
1907. Lord Davey's great legal knowledge was displayed in his judgments
no less than at the bar. In legislation he took no conspicuous part, but
he was a keen promoter of the act passed in 1906 for the checking of
gambling.
DAVID (a Hebrew name meaning probably _beloved_[1]),
Source.
in the Bible, the son of Jesse, king of Judah and Israel, and founder of
the royal Judaean dynasty at Jerusalem. The chronology of his period is
uncertain: the usual date, 1055-1015 B.C., is probably thirty years to
half a century too early. The books of Samuel (strictly, 1 Sam. xvi.-1
Kings ii.), which are our principal source for the history of David,
show how deep an impression the personality of the king, his character,
his genius and the romantic story of his early years had left on the
mind of the nation. Of no hero of antiquity do we possess so life-like a
portrait. Minute details and traits of character are portrayed with a
vividness which bears all the marks of contemporary narrative. But the
record is by no means all of one piece or of one date. This history, as
we now have it, is extracted from various sources of unequal value,
which are fitted together in a way which offers considerable
difficulties to the critic. In the history of David's early adventures,
for example, the narrative is not seldom disordered, and sometimes seems
to repeat itself with puzzling variations of detail, which have led
critics to the unanimous conclusion that the First Book of Samuel is
drawn from at least two sources. It is indeed easy to understand that
the romantic incidents of this period were much in the mouths of the
people--to whom David was a popular hero--and in course of time were
written down in various forms which were not combined into perfect
harmony by later editors, who gave excerpts from several sources rather
than a new and independent history. These excerpts, however, have been
so pieced together, that it is often impossible to separate them with
precision, and to distinguish accurately between earlier and later
elements. It even appears from a study of the Greek text that some
copies of the books of Samuel incorporated narratives which other copies
did not acknowledge. For the literary problems of these books, see also
SAMUEL (BOOKS).
The parallel history of David in 1 Chron. xi.-xxix. contains a great
deal of additional matter, which can rarely be treated as of equal
historical value with the preceding. Where it follows the chapters in
Samuel it is important for textual and other critical problems, but it
omits narratives in which it is not interested (David's youth,
persecution by Saul, Absalom's revolt, &c.), and adds long passages
(David's arrangements for the temple, &c.) which reflect the views of a
much later age than David's. The lists of officers, &c., are fuller than
those in Samuel, and here and there contain notices of value. A
comparison of the two records, however, is especially important for its
illustration of the later tendency to idealize the figure of David, and
the historical critic has to bear in mind the possibility that this
tendency had begun long before the Chronicler's time, and that it may be
found in the relatively older records preserved in Samuel.
Introduction to Saul.
David's father, Jesse, was a citizen of Bethlehem in Judah, 5 m. south
of Jerusalem; the polite deprecation in 1 Sam. xviii. 18 means little
(cf. Saul in ix. 21). Tradition made him a descendant of the ancient
nobles of Judah through Boaz and the Moabitess Ruth, but the tendency to
furnish a noble ancestry for a noble figure--especially one of obscure
birth--is widespread (cf. GENEALOGY). He was the youngest of eight
sons,[2] and spent his youth in an occupation which the Hebrews as well
as the Arabs seem to have held in low esteem. He kept his father's sheep
in the desert steppes of Judah, and there developed the strength,
agility, endurance and courage which distinguished him throughout life
(cf. 1 Sam. xvii. 34, xxiv. 2; 2 Sam. xvii. 9). There, too, he acquired
that skill in music which led to his first introduction to Saul (1 Sam.
xvi. 14-23, and the apocryphal Psalm of David, Ps. cli. in the
Septuagint). He found favour in the king's eye, and became his
armour-bearer.[3] But traditions varied. In 1 Sam. xvii. he does not
follow his master to the field against the Philistines; he is an obscure
untried shepherd lad sent by his father with supplies for his brothers
in the Israelite camp. He does not even present himself before the king,
and his brothers treat him with a petulance hardly conceivable if he
stood well at court, and it appears from the close that neither Saul
nor his captain Abner had heard of him before (vv. 55-58). There is,
indeed, a flat contradiction between the two accounts, but a family of
Greek MSS. represented by the Vatican text omit xvii. 12-31, xvii.
55-xviii. 5, and thus the difficulty is greatly lessened. Characteristic
of the omitted portions are the friendship which sprang up between
Jonathan and David and the latter's appointment to a command in the
army. A further difficulty is caused by 2 Sam. xxi. 19, which makes
Elhanan the slayer of Goliath. David's exploit is not referred to in 1
Sam. xxi. 10-15, xxix., and on this and other grounds the simpler
tradition in 2 Sam. is usually preferred. (See GOLIATH.) But it must
have been by some valiant deed that Saul was led to notice him (cf. xiv.
52), and David soon became both a popular hero and an object of jealousy
to Saul. According to the Hebrew text of 1 Sam. xviii., Saul's jealousy
leaped at once to the conclusion that David's ambition would not stop
short of the kingship. Such a suspicion would be intelligible if we
could suppose that the king had heard something of the significant act
of Samuel, which now stands at the head of the history of David in
witness of that divine election and unction with the spirit of Yahweh on
which his whole career hung (xvi. 1-13). But this passage is the sequel
to the rejection of Saul in xv., and Samuel's position agrees with that
of the late writer in vii., viii. and xii.[4]
Conflicts with Saul.
The shorter text, represented by the Septuagint, gives an account of
Saul's jealousy which is psychologically more intelligible.[5] According
to this text Saul was simply possessed with such a personal dislike and
dread of David as might easily occupy his disordered brain. To be quit
of his hateful presence he gave him a military command. In this charge
David increased his reputation as a soldier and became a general
favourite. Saul's daughter Michal loved him; and her father, whose
jealousy continued to increase, resolved to put the young captain on a
perilous enterprise, promising him the hand of Michal as a reward of
success, but secretly hoping that he would perish in the attempt.
David's good fortune did not desert him; he won his wife, and in this
new advancement continued to grow in the popular favour, and to gain
fresh laurels in the field. At this point it is necessary to look back
on the proposed marriage of David with Saul's eldest daughter Merab
(xviii. 17-19; cf. xvii. 2-5). When the time came for Saul to fulfil his
promise, Merab was given to Adriel of Abel-Meholah (perhaps an
Aramaean). What is said of this affair interrupts the original context
of chap. xviii., to which the insertion has been clumsily fitted by an
interpolation in the second half of ver. 21 (LXX omits). We have here,
therefore, a notice drawn from a distinct source which connects itself
with the other omitted passage, xvii. 12-31, where Saul had promised his
daughter to the one who should overthrow Goliath (ver. 25). Since Merab
and Michal are confounded in 2 Sam. xxi. 8, the whole episode of Merab
and David perhaps rests on a similar confusion of names.
As the king's son-in-law, David was necessarily again at court. He
became chief of the bodyguard, as Ewald rightly interprets 1 Sam. xxii.
14, and ranked next to Abner (xx. 25), so that Saul's insane fears were
constantly exasperated by personal contact with him. On at least one
occasion the king's frenzy broke out in an attempt to murder David with
his own hand.[6] At another time Saul actually gave commands to
assassinate his son-in-law, but the breach was made up by Jonathan,
whose chivalrous spirit had united him to David in a covenant of closest
friendship (xix. 1-7). The circumstances of the final outburst of Saul's
hatred, which drove David into exile, are not easily disentangled. The
narrative of 1 Sam. xx., which is the principal account of the matter,
cannot originally have been preceded by xix. 11-24; in chap. xx. David
appears to be still at court, and Jonathan is even unaware that he is in
any danger, whereas the preceding verses represent him as already a
fugitive. It may also be doubted whether the narrative of David's escape
from his own house by the aid of his wife Michal (xix. 11-17) has any
close connexion with ver. 10, and does not rather belong to a later
period.[7] David's daring spirit might very well lead him to visit his
wife even after his first flight. The danger of such an enterprise was
diminished by the reluctance to violate the apartments of women and
attack a sleeping foe, which appears also in Judges xvi. 2, and among
the Arabs.[8]
According to chap. xx. David was still at court in his usual position
when he became certain that the king was aiming at his life. He betook
himself to Jonathan, who thought his suspicions groundless, but
undertook to test them. A plan was arranged by which Jonathan should
draw from the king an expression of his feelings, and a tremendous
explosion revealed that Saul regarded David as the rival of his dynasty,
and Jonathan as little better than a fellow-conspirator. After a final
interview (xx. 40-42), which must be regarded as a later expansion, they
parted and David fled. He sought the sanctuary at Nob, where he had been
wont to consult the priestly oracle (xxii. 15), and here, concealing his
disgrace by a fictitious story, he also obtained bread from the
consecrated table and the sword of Goliath (chap. xxi. i-9).[9] His
hasty flight--without food and weapon--suggests that the narrative
should follow upon xix. 17.
Outlaw life.
It was perhaps after this that David made a last attempt to find a place
of refuge in the prophetic circle of Samuel at Ramah (xix. 18-24). The
episode now stands in another connexion, where it is certainly out of
place. It might, however, fit into the break that plainly exists in the
history at xxi. 10 after the affair at Nob. Deprived of the protection
of religion as well as of justice, David tried his fortune among the
Philistines at Gath. Recognized and suspected as a redoubtable foe, he
made his escape by feigning madness, which in the East has inviolable
privileges (xxi. 11-16).[10] The passage anticipates chap. xxvii., and
it is hardly probable that the slayer of Goliath or of any other
Philistine giant fled to the Philistines with their dead hero's sword.
He returned to the wilds of Judah, and was joined at Adullam[11] by his
father's house and by a small band of outlaws, of which he became the
head. Placing his parents under the charge of the king of Moab, he took
up the life of a guerilla captain, cultivating friendly relations with
the townships of Judah (xxx. 26), which were glad to have on their
frontiers a protector so valiant as David, even at the expense of the
blackmail which he levied in return. A clear conception of his life at
this time, and of the respect which he inspired by the discipline in
which he held his men, and of the generosity which tempered his fiery
nature, is given in chap. xxv. His force gradually swelled, and he was
joined by the prophet Gad (note his message xxii. 5) and by the priest
Abiathar, the only survivor of a terrible massacre by which Saul took
revenge for the favours which David had received at the sanctuary of
Nob. He was even able to strike at the Philistines, and to rescue Keilah
(south of Adullam and to the east of Beit Jibrin) from their attack
(xxiii. 1-13). Forced to flee by the treachery of the very men whom he
had succoured, he lived for a time in constant fear of being captured by
Saul, and at length took refuge with Achish king of Gath and established
himself in Ziklag. Popular tradition, as though unwilling to let David
escape from Saul, told of that king's continual pursuit of the outlaw,
of the attempt of the men of Ziph (S.E. of Hebron) to betray him, of
David's magnanimity displayed on two occasions, and of Jonathan's visit
to console his bosom friend (xxiv.-xxvi.).[12] The situation was one
which lent itself to the imagination.
The site of Ziklag is unknown. It hardly lay near Gath (probably Tell
es-Safi, 12 m. E. of Ashdod), but rather to the south of Judah (Josh.
xix. 5). Here he occupied himself in chastening the Amalekites and other
robber tribes who made raids on Judah and the Philistines without
distinction (xxvii.). The details of the text are obscure, and seem to
imply that David systematically attacked populations friendly to Achish
whilst pretending that he had been making forays against Judah. If this
were an attempt to steer a middle course his true actions could not have
been kept secret long, and as it is implied that the Philistines
subsequently acquiesced in David's sovereignty in Hebron, it is not easy
to see what interest they had in embroiling him with the men of Judah.
At length, in the second year, he was called to join his master in a
great campaign against Saul. The Philistines for once directed their
forces towards the plain of Jezreel (Esdraelon) in the north; and Saul,
forsaken by Yahweh, already gave himself up for lost. David accompanied
the army as a matter of course. But his presence was not observed until
they reached their destination, when the jealousy of the Philistines
overrode his protestations of fidelity and he was ordered to return. He
reached Ziklag only to find the town pillaged by the Amalekites.
Pursuing the foes, he inflicted upon them a signal chastisement and took
a great booty, part of which he spent in politic gifts to the leading
men of the towns in the south country.[13]
King at Hebron.
Meantime Saul had fallen in battle, and northern Israel was in a state
of chaos. The Philistines took possession of the fertile lowlands of
Jezreel and the Jordan, and the shattered forces of Israel were slowly
rallied by Abner in the remote city of Mahanaim in Gilead, under the
nominal sovereignty of Saul's son Ishbaal. David now took the first
great step to the throne. He was no longer an outlaw with a band of
wandering companions, but a petty chieftain, head of a small colony of
men, allied with families of Caleb and Jezreel (in Judah), and on
friendly footing with the sheikhs south of Hebron. In response to an
oracle he was bidden to move northwards to Judah and successfully
occupied it with Hebron as his capital. Here he was anointed king, the
first ruler of the southern kingdom. If the chronological notice may be
trusted, he was then thirty years of age, and he reigned there for seven
and a half years (2. Sam. ii. 1-4a, 11, v. 4 sq.). The noble elegy on
the death of Saul and Jonathan, quoted from the Book of Jashar (2 Sam.
i.), is marked by the absence both of religious feeling and of allusions
to his earlier experiences with Saul which David might have been
expected to make. It was deemed only natural that he should sympathize
deeply with the disasters of the northern kingdom. His vengeance on the
Amalekite who slew Saul--the account is a doublet of 1 Sam. xxxi.--is
consistent with his generous treatment of his late adversary in his
outlaw life, and with this agrees his embassy of thanks to the men of
Jabesh-Gilead for their chivalrous rescue of the bodies of the fallen
heroes (2 Sam. ii. 4b-7). The embassy threw out a hint,--their lord was
dead and David himself had been anointed king over Judah; but the
relation between Jabesh-Gilead and Saul had been a close one, and it was
not to be expected that its eyes would be turned upon the king of Judah
when Saul's son was installed at the not distant Mahanaim. The interest
of the narratives is now directed away from the Philistines to the
decaying fortunes of Saul's house. (See ABNER and SAUL.) Abner had taken
Saul's son Ishbaal and his authority was gradually consolidated in the
north. War broke out between the two parties at Gibeon a few miles north
of Jerusalem. A sham contest was changed into a fatal fray by the
treachery of Ishbaal's men; and in the battle which ensued Abner was not
only defeated, but, by slaying Asahel, drew upon himself a blood-feud
with Joab. The war continued. Ishbaal's party became weaker and weaker;
and at length Abner quarrelled with his nominal master and offered the
kingdom to David. The king seized the opportunity to demand the return
of Michal, his wife. The passage (iii. 12-16) is not free from
difficulties, but it is intelligible that David should desire to ally
himself as closely as possible with Saul's family (cf. xii. 8). The base
murder of Abner by Joab did not long defer the inevitable issue of
events. Ishbaal lost hope, and after he had been foully assassinated by
two of his own followers, all Israel sought David as king.
The biblical narrative is admittedly not so constructed as to enable us
to describe in chronological order the thirty-three years of David's
reign over all Israel. It is possible that some of the incidents
ascribed to this period properly belong to an earlier part of his life,
and that tradition has idealized the life of David the king even as it
has not failed to colour the history of David the outlaw and king of
Hebron.
Critical considerations.
In the preceding account the biblical narratives have been followed as
closely as possible in the light of the critical results generally
accepted. That they have been affected by the growth of popular
tradition is patent from the traces of duplicate narratives, from the
difficulty caused, for example, by the story of Goliath (q.v.), and
from a closer study of the chapters. The later views of the history of
this period are represented in the book of Chronicles, where
immediately after Saul's death David is anointed at Hebron king over
all Israel (1 Chron. xi.). It is quite in harmony with this that the
same source speaks of the Israelites who joined David at Ziklag (1
Chron. xii. 1-22), and of the host which came to him at Hebron to turn
over to him Saul's kingdom (xii. 23-40). This treatment of history can
be at once corrected by the books of Samuel, but it is only from a
deeper study of the internal evidence that these, too, appear to give
expression to doubtful and conflicting views. It is questionable
whether David could have become king over all Israel immediately after
the death of Ishbaal. The chronological notices in ii. 10 sqq. allow
an interval of no less than five and a half years, and nowhere do the
events of these years appear to be recorded. But David's position in
the south of Judah is clear. He is related by marriage with south
Judaean clans of Caleb, Jezreel, and probably Geshur. (See ABSALOM.)
He was at the head of a small colony (1 Sam. xxvii. 3), and on
friendly terms with the sheikhs south of Hebron (xxx. 26-31).[14] His
step forward to Hebron is in every way intelligible and is the natural
outcome of his policy. It is less easy to trace his previous moves.
There are gaps in the narratives, and the further back we proceed the
more serious do their difficulties become. These chapters bring him
farther north, and they commence by depicting David as a man of
Bethlehem, high in the court of Saul, the king's son-in-law, and a
popular favourite with the people. But notwithstanding this, the
relation is broken off, and years elapse before David gains hold upon
the Hebrews of north Israel, the weakness of the union being proved by
the ease with which it was subsequently broken after Solomon's death.
Much of the life of Saul is obscure, and this too, it would seem,
because tradition loved rather to speak of the founder of the ideal
monarchy than of his less successful rival. (See SAUL.) It is not
impossible that some traditions did not bring them together. If
Jerusalem and its immediate neighbourhood were first conquered by
David (2 Sam. v.), it is probable that Beeroth and Gibeon (2 Sam. iv.
2, xxi. 2), Shaalbim, Har-heres and Aijalon (Judg. i. 35), Gezer (ib.
i. 29), Chephirah and Kirjath-jearim (Josh. ix. 17) had remained
Canaanite. The evidence has obviously some bearing upon the history of
Saul, as also upon the intercourse between Judah and Benjamin which
David's early history implies. It has been conjectured, therefore,
that David's original home lay in the south. Since the early
historical narrative (1 Sam. xxv. 2) finds him in Maon, Winckler has
suggested that he was a Calebite chief, while a criticism of the
details relating to David's family has induced Marquart[15] to
conjecture that he was born at Arad (Tell 'Arad) about 17 m. S.E. of
Hebron. Once indeed we find him in the wilderness of Paran 1 (Sam.
xxv. 1, LXX reads Maon), and a more southerly origin has been thought
of (Winckler). This is involved with other views of the early history
of the Israelites; see further below.
Capture of Jerusalem.
David owed his success to his troop of freebooters (1 Sam. xxii. 2), now
an organized force, and absolutely attached to his person. The valour of
these "mighty men" (_gibborim_) was topical. The names of the most
honoured are preserved, and we have some interesting accounts of their
exploits in the days of the giants (2 Sam. xxi., xxiii.). We hear of two
great battles with the "Philistines" in the valley of Rephaim, near
Jerusalem, at a time when David's base was Adullam (v. 17-25). In one
conflict a giant thought to slay him, but he was saved by Abishai, the
brother of Joab, and the men took an oath that David should no more go
to battle lest he "quench the light of Israel." On another occasion,
Elhanan of Bethlehem slew the giant Goliath of Gath, and David's own
brother Shimei (or Shammah) overthrew a monster who could boast of
twenty-four fingers and toes. In yet another incident the Philistines
maintained a garrison in Bethlehem, and David expressed a wish for a
drink from its well. The wish was gratified at the risk of the lives of
three brave men, and he recognized the solemnity of the occasion by
pouring out the water as an offering unto Yahweh.
From a later summary (viii. 1) it seems that the Philistines were at
length vanquished, and the unknown Metheg-Ammah taken out of their
hands.[16] Not until the district was cleared could Jerusalem be taken,
and the capture of the almost impregnable Jebusite fortress furnished a
centre for future action. Here, in the midst of a region which had been
held by aliens, he fortified the "city of David" and garrisoned it with
his men. Meanwhile the ark of Yahweh, the only sanctuary of national
significance, had remained in obscurity since its return from the
Philistines in the early youth of Samuel. (See ARK.) David brought it up
from Baalah of Judah with great pomp, and pitched a tent for it in Zion,
amidst national rejoicings. The narrative (2 Sam. vi.) represents the
act as that of a loyal and God-fearing heart which knew that the true
principle of Israel's unity and strength lay in national adherence to
Yahweh; but the event was far from having the significance which later
times ascribed to it (1 Chron. xiii., xv. sqq.); even Solomon visited
the sanctuary at Gibeon, and Absalom vowed his vow unto Yahweh at
Hebron. It was not unnatural that the king who had his palace built by
Tyrian artists should have proposed to erect a permanent temple to
Yahweh. Such, at least, was the thought of later writers, who have given
effect to the belief in chap. viii. It was said that the prophet Nathan
commanded the execution of this plan to be delayed for a generation; but
David received at the same time a prophetic assurance that his house and
kingdom should be established for ever before Yahweh.
Internal policy.
What remains to be said of his internal policy may be briefly detailed.
In civil matters the king looked heedfully to the execution of justice
(viii. 15), and was always accessible to the people (xiv. 4). But he
does not appear to have made any change in the old local administration
of justice, or to have appointed a central tribunal (xv. 2, where,
however, Absalom's complaint that the king was inaccessible is merely
factious). A few great officers of state were appointed at the court of
Jerusalem (viii. 16-18, xx. 23-26), which was not without a splendour
hitherto unknown in Israel. Royal pensioners, of whom Jonathan's son
Mephibosheth was one, were gathered round a princely table. The art of
music was not neglected (xix. 35). A more dangerous piece of
magnificence was the harem. Another innovation was the census; it was
undertaken despite the protests of Joab, and was checked by the rebukes
of the prophet Gad and the visitation of a pestilence (xxiv.). Striking,
too, is the conception of the national God who incites the king to do an
act for which he was to be punished.[17] To us, the proposal to number
the people seems innocent and laudable, and the latest sources of the
Pentateuch contain several such lists. This new procedure, we may
imagine, was resented by the northern Hebrews as an encroachment upon
their liberties. We learn that the destroying angel was stayed at the
threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite,[18] and the spot thus
sanctified was made a sanctuary, and commemorated by an altar. It was
the very place upon which Solomon's temple was supposed to be founded.
The census-taking may have been a preliminary to the great wars, but the
latter, on the other hand, are obviously presupposed by the extent of
his kingdom. For his wars a larger force than his early bodyguard was
required, and the Chronicler gives an account of the way in which an
army of nearly 300,000 was raised and held by David's thirty heroes (1
Chron. xxvii.). It is certain at all events that no small body of
soldiers would be needed, and this alone would imply that all Israel was
by this time under his entire control.
Wars and conquests.
Apart from the Ammonite war, our sources are confined to a mere summary
(viii.), which includes even the Amalekites (viii. 12, cf. i Sam. xxx.).
After the defeat of the Philistines came the turn of Moab. It was under
the care of the king of Moab that David placed his parents when he fled
from Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 3 sqq.), and what led to the war is unknown. The
severity with which the land was treated may pass for a gentle reprisal
if the Moabites of that day were not more humane than their descendants
in the days of King Mesha.[19] A deadly conflict with the Ammonites was
provoked by a gross insult to friendly ambassadors of Israel;[20] and
this war, of which we have pretty full details in 2 Sam. x. i-xi. 1,
xii. 26-31, assumed unexpected dimensions when the Ammonites procured
the aid of their Aramean neighbours. The defeat of Hadadezer brought
about the submission of other lesser kings. The glory of this victory
was increased by the complete subjugation of Edom in a war conducted by
Joab with characteristic severity (2 Sam. viii. 13; 1 Kings xi. 15-17;
Ps. lx., title). The fall of Rabbah concludes David's war-like exploits;
he carried off the jewelled crown of their god (Milcom), and subjected
the people, not to torture (1 Chron. xx. 3), but to severe menial labour
(xii. 26-31).
The Aramean states, Beth-rehob, Maacah, Tob, &c., lay partly to the
north of Gilead and partly in the region which was the scene of the
fight with Jabin (Josh. xi. 1-9, Judg. iv.; see DEBORAH). Apparently
it was here, too, that the Danites found a settlement (Judg. xviii.
28); the migration has perhaps been ante-dated. (See DAN, TRIBE.) The
account of David's wars is remarkable for the inclusion of the Syrians
of Damascus and beyond the Euphrates; some exaggeration has been
suspected (cf. 2 Sam. viii. 5 with x. 16). Some misunderstanding has
been caused by the confusion of Edom ([Hebrew: Edom]) and Aram
([Hebrew: Aram]) in viii. 13. A more moderate idea of David's power
has been found in Ps. lx. 6-12, or, preferably, in the description of
the boundaries (2 Sam. xxiv. 5 sqq.). To the east of the Jordan he
held rule from Aroer to Gad and Gilead; on its west his power extended
from Beersheba in the south to Dan and Ijon at the foot of Hermon.
Moab, Ammon and Edom would appear to have been merely tributary,
whilst in the north among his allies David could number the king of
Hamath. To the north-west Israel bordered upon Tyre, with whom its
relations were friendly. The king of Tyre, who recognized David's
newly won position (v. 11 seq.), is called Hiram; possibly--unless the
notice is an anticipation of 1 Kings v.--his father Abibaal is
meant.[21]
Internal troubles.
As the birth of Solomon is placed before the capture of Rabbah of Ammon
(xii.), it would appear that David's wars were ended within the first
half of his reign at Jerusalem, and the tributary nations thus do not
seem to have attempted any revolt during his lifetime (see 1 Kings xi.
14 sqq. and 25). It was only when the nation was no longer knit
together by the fear of danger from without that the internal
difficulties of the new kingdom became more manifest. Such at least is
the impression which the narratives convey.[22] So, after David had
completed a series of conquests which made Palestine the greatest of the
petty states of the age, troubles arose with the Israelites, who in
times past had sought for him to be king (iii. 17, v. 1-3), with his old
subjects the men of Judah, and with the members of his own household.
The northern tribes, who appear to have submitted willingly to his rule,
were not all of one mind. There were men of stronger build than the weak
Ishbaal and the crippled son of Jonathan, the survivors of Saul's house,
and it is only to be expected that David's first care must have been to
cement the union of the north and south. The choice of Jerusalem,
standing on neutral ground, may be regarded as a stroke of genius, and
there is nothing to show that the king exercised that rigour which was
to be the cause of his grandson's undoing. (See REHOBOAM.) On the other
hand, when Sheba, probably one of Saul's clan, headed a rising and was
promptly pursued by Joab to Abel-beth-maacah on the west of Dan, honour
was satisfied by the death of the rebel, and no further steps were taken
(xx.).[23] This policy of leniency towards Israel is characteristic of
David, and may well have become a popular theme in the tales of
succeeding generations. This same magnanimity towards the survivors of
Saul's house has left its mark upon many of the narratives, and helps to
a truer understanding of the stories of his early life. Thus it was
quite in keeping with the romantic attachment between David and Saul's
son Jonathan that when he became king of Israel he took Jonathan's son
Meribbaal under his care (ix.).[24] The deed was not merely generous, it
was politic to have Saul's grandson under his eyes. The hope of
restoring the lost kingdom had not died out (cf. xvi. 3). But from
another source we gain quite a different idea of the relations. A
disastrous famine ravaged the land for three long years, and when Yahweh
was consulted the reply came that there was "blood upon Saul and upon
his house because he put the Gibeonites to death." The unavenged blood
was the cause of divine anger, and retribution must be made. This David
recognized, and, summoning the injured clan, inquired what expiation
could be made. Bloodshed could only be atoned by blood-money or by
shedding the blood of the offender or of his family. The Gibeonites
demanded the latter, and five sons of Merab (the text by a mistake reads
Michal) and two sons of Saul's concubine were sacrificed. The awful deed
took place at the beginning of harvest (April-May), and the bodies
remained suspended until, with the advent of the autumn rains, Yahweh
was once more reconciled to his land (xxi. 1-14). The incident is a
valuable picture of crude ideas of Yahweh, and, if nothing else were
needed, it was sufficient to involve David in a feud with the
Benjamites.[25] Here, too, we learn of the tardy burial of the bones of
Saul and Jonathan which had remained in Jabesh-Gilead since the battle
of Gilboa;--the history of David's dealings with the family of Saul has
been obscured. That he took over his harem is only in accordance with
the Eastern policy (cf. xii. 8).
Absalom's revolt.
The harem, an indispensable part of Eastern state, was responsible for
many fatal disorders, although it is clear from 2 Sam. xvi. 21 that the
nation at large was not very sensitive to the enormities which flow from
this system. David's deep fall in the matter of Bathsheba (xi.) was too
great an iniquity to be passed over lightly, and the base murder of her
husband Uriah the Hittite could not go unavenged. Bathsheba's influence
added a new element of danger to the usual jealousies of the harem, and
two of David's sons perished in vain attempts to claim the throne, which
she appears to have viewed as the rightful inheritance of her own child.
This, at least, is certain in the revolt of Adonijah (see SOLOMON), and
it was probably believed that the action of the impulsive Absalom arose
from the suspicion that the birth of Solomon was the death-blow to his
succession.
As a piece of writing the vivid narratives are without an equal. David's
sons were estranged from one another, and acquired all the vices of
Oriental princes. The severe impartiality of the sacred historian has
concealed no feature in this dark picture,--the brutal passion of Amnon,
the shameless counsel of the wily Jonadab, the "black scowl"[26] that
rested on the face of Absalom through two long years of meditated
revenge, the panic of the court when the blow was struck and Amnon was
assassinated in the midst of his brethren. Not until five years had
elapsed was Absalom fully reconciled with his father. Then he meditated
revolt. As heir-apparent he collected a bodyguard, and studiously
courting personal popularity by a pretended interest in the
administration of kingly justice, ingratiated himself with the mass.
Four years later (so read in xv. 7) he ventured to raise the standard of
revolt in Hebron, with the malcontent Judaeans as his first supporters,
and the crafty Ahithophel as his chief adviser. Arrangements had been
made for the simultaneous proclamation of Absalom in all parts of the
land. The surprise was complete, and David was compelled to evacuate
Jerusalem, where he might have been crushed before he had time to rally
his faithful subjects. He was warmly received by the Gileadites, and the
first battle destroyed the party of Absalom, who was himself captured
and slain by Joab. Then all the people repented except the men of Judah,
who were not to be conciliated without a virtual admission of
prerogative of kinship to the king. This concession involved important
consequences. The precedence claimed by Judah was challenged by the
northern tribes even on the day of David's victorious return to his
capital, and a rupture ensued, headed by Sheba, which but for the energy
of Joab might have led to a second and more dangerous rebellion.
Several indications suggest that the revolt was one in which the men
of Judah originally took the leading if not the only part. The unruly
clans which David knew how to control when he was at Ziklag or Hebron
were doubtless ready to support the rebellious son. The removal of the
court to Jerusalem provided a suitable opportunity, and an element of
jealousy even may not have been wanting. If Geshur be the district in
Josh. xiii. 2, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, it is significant that the scene of
Absalom's exile lay to the south, that Ahithophel was a south Judaean,
and that Amasa probably belonged to the Jezreel[27] with which David
was connected through his wife Ahinoam. The eleven years which elapsed
between the murder of Amnon and the revolt would seem to disprove any
connexion between the two; the chronology may rest upon the tradition
that Solomon was twelve years old when he came to the throne. David's
hurried flight, attended only by his bodyguard, indicates that his
position was not a very strong one, and it is difficult to connect
this with the fact that he had already waged the wars mentioned in 2
Sam. viii. and x. If his reason for taking refuge in Ishbaal's capital
Mahanaim is not obvious, it is even more remarkable that he should
have been received kindly by the Ammonites whom he had previously
decimated. On the theory that the revolt of Absalom chronologically
should precede the great wars, a slight correction of the already
corrupt text in xvii. 27 makes Nahash himself David's ally, and
accounts for David's eagerness to repay to Hanun, the son of Nahash,
the kindness which he had received from the father (x. 2). That the
revolt of Sheba is in an impossible position is obvious. Tradition has
probably confused Benjamite risings with Absalom's misguided
enterprise; the parts played by Shimei and Meribbaal, at all events,
are extremely suggestive. See ABSALOM, AHITHOPHEL.
David's life-work.
The Appendix ascribes to David a song of triumph and some exceedingly
obscure "last words" (xxii.-xxiii. 7) which cannot be used as historical
material. The history of his life is immediately continued in 1 Kings
i., where his old age and weakness are for the first time vividly
emphasized. The events of the remaining years after 2 Sam. xx. are left
untold, but the Chronicler omits the revolt of Absalom and represents
the king as busily occupied with schemes concerning the future temple.
The last spark of his old energy was called forth to secure the
succession of Solomon against the ambition of Adonijah. It is noteworthy
that, as in the case of Absalom, the pretender, though supported by Joab
and Abiathar, found his chief stay among the men of Judah (1 Kings i.
9). (See SOLOMON.)
To estimate the work of David it is necessary to take into account the
situation before and after his period. According to the prevailing
traditions, Saul at his death had left North Israel disunited and
humiliated. From this condition David raised the land to the highest
state of prosperity and glory, and by his conquests made the united
kingdom the most powerful state of the age. To do this other qualities
than mere military capacity were required. David was not only a great
captain, he was a national hero in whom all the noblest elements of the
Hebrew genius were combined. His talent enabled him to weld together the
mixed southern clans which became incorporated under Judah, and to build
up a monarchy which represented the highest conception of national life
possible under the circumstances. The structure, it is true, was not
permanent. Under his successor it began to decay, and in the next
generation it fell asunder and lived only in the hearts of the people as
the proudest memory of past history and the prophetic ideal of future
glory.[28] Opinion will differ, however, as to the extent to which later
ideals have influenced the narratives upon which the student of Hebrew
history and religion is dependent, and how far the reigns of David and
Solomon altered the face of Hebrew history. The foundation of the united
monarchy was the greatest advance in the whole course of the history of
the Israelites, and around it have been collected the hopes and fears
which a varied experience of monarchical government aroused. Many of the
narratives furnish a vivid picture of the life of David with a
minuteness of personal detail which has suggested to some that their
author was intimately acquainted with the events, and, if not a
contemporary, belonged to the succeeding generation, while to others it
has seemed more probable that these reflect rather "the plastic mould of
popular tradition." It cannot be doubted that the three types of David,
represented by the books of Samuel, of Chronicles, and the
superscriptions of the Psalms, are irreconcilable, and that they
represent successive developments of the original traditions. That the
oldest of these three does not contain earlier attempts to idealize him
is unlikely. "Political circumstances naturally led to an
ever-increasing appreciation of his person and his work as the unifier
of Israel. In the eyes of posterity he became more and more completely
the model of an Israelitish king and the natural consequence was that he
was idealized. The hope of the regeneration of his dynasty, and, at a
later period, of its restoration to the throne--the Messianic
expectation--must have worked powerfully in the same direction. And
meanwhile the religious convictions of the highest minds in Israel were
undergoing a marked change. The conceptions of Yahweh and of the
religion which was acceptable to him were constantly being elevated and
purified. This could not but have an influence on the current ideas
concerning David. He, too, must be remodelled as the conceptions of God
were changed."[29] But what is lost as regards historical material is a
distinct gain to the study of the development of Hebrew thought and
philosophy of history.
David's character must be judged partly in the light of the times in
which he lived and partly in connexion with the great truths which he
represents, truths whose value is not impaired should they prove to be
the convictions of later ages. Accordingly, David is not to be condemned
for failing to subdue the sensuality which is the chief stain on his
character, but should rather be judged by his habitual recognition of a
generous standard of conduct, by the undoubted purity and lofty justice
of an administration which was never stained by selfish considerations
or motives of personal rancour,[30] and finally by the calm courage
which enabled him to hold an even and noble course in the face of
dangers and treachery. His great sin in the matter of Uriah would have
been forgotten but for his repentance: the things at which modern ideas
are most offended are not always those that would have given umbrage to
early writers. That he did not reform at a stroke all ancient abuses
appears particularly in relation to the practice of blood revenge; to
put an end to this deep-rooted custom would have been an impossibility.
But it is clear from 2 Sam. iii. 28 sqq., xiv. 1-10, that his sympathies
were against the barbarous usage. Nor is it just to accuse him of
cruelty in his treatment of enemies. As it was impossible to establish a
military cordon along the borders of Canaan, it was necessary absolutely
to cripple the adjoining tribes. From the lust of conquest for its own
sake David appears to have been wholly free.
The generous elevation of David's character is seen most clearly in
those parts of his life where an inferior nature would have been most at
fault,--in his conduct towards Saul, in the blameless reputation of
himself and his band of outlaws in the wilderness of Judah, in his
repentance under the rebuke of Nathan and in his noble bearing on the
revolt of Absalom. His touching love for his worthless son is one of the
most beautiful descriptions of paternal affection. His unfailing insight
into character, and his power of winning men's hearts and touching their
better impulses, appear in innumerable traits (e.g. 2 Sam. xiv. 18-20,
iii. 31-37, xxiii. 15-17), and here, as elsewhere, the charm which the
life of David has upon its readers is entirely unaffected by technical
questions of literary and historical criticism.
Growth of tradition.
To the later generations David was pre-eminently the Psalmist and the
founder of the Temple service. The Hebrew titles ascribe to him
seventy-three psalms; the Septuagint adds some fifteen more; and later
opinion, both Jewish and Christian, claimed for him the authorship of
the whole Psalter (so the Talmud, Augustine and others). That the
tradition of the titles requires careful sifting is no longer doubted,
and the results of recent criticism have been to confirm the view that
"it is no longer possible to treat the psalms as a record of David's
spiritual life through all the steps of his chequered career" (W. R.
Smith, _Old Test. in Jew. Church_^2, p. 224). Nor can it be maintained
that the elaborate ritual ascribed to David by the chronicler has any
historical value. See further CHRONICLES, PSALMS.
On the other hand, these traditions, however unhistorical in their
present form, cannot be pure imagination. The male and female singers
(if the reading be correct) whom Sennacherib carried off from
Jerusalem in Hezekiah's time, may well have belonged to an old
foundation (A. Jeremias, _Alte Test. im Lichte d. Alten Orients_^2, p.
527), and though David's skill referred to in Amos vi. 5 may be due to
a gloss, it is a Judaean narrative which tells of the invention of
music, ascribing it possibly to a Judaean legendary hero (Gen. iv.
21). And although the Levitical organization, as ascribed to David, is
manifestly post-exilic, it is at least certain that many of the
Levitical families were of southern origin. It is in David's history
that the clans of the south first attained prominence, and some of
them are known to have been staunch upholders of a purer worship of
Yahweh, or to have been associated with the introduction of religious
institutions among the Israelites. (See LEVITES.)
The difficulty of the historical problems increases when the
narratives of David are more closely studied: (_a_) 2 Sam. iii. 18,
xix. 9 show that according to one view David delivered _Israel_ (not
Judah) from the Philistines. This is in contradiction to ii. 8 sqq.
(from another source), where Saul's son recovers Israelite territory,
but is supported by ix., where Mephibosheth is found at Lo-debar. This
historical view has probably left its trace upon the present
traditions of Saul, whose defeat by the "Philistines" (here found in
the north and not as usual in the south) left Israel in much the same
position as when he was anointed king (cf. 1 Sam. xxxi. 7 with xiii.
7). Again (_b_) the primitive stories of conflicts with "Philistine"
giants between Hebron and Jerusalem (2 Sam. v. 17 sqq., xxi. 15 sqq.
and xxiii.) find their analogy in Caleb's overthrow of the sons of
Anak (Judg. i. 10; Josh. xv. 14), and in the allusion to the same
prehistoric folk in the account of the spies (Num. xiii. 28). From a
number of points of evidence there appears to have been a group of
traditions of a movement from the south (probably Kadesh, Num. xiii.
26) associated with Caleb, David and the Levites. If the clans of
Moses' kin which moved into Judah bore the ark (Num. x. 29 sqq.; see
Kenites), and if Abiathar carried it before David (1 Kings ii. 26),
there were traditions of the ark distinct from those which associate
it with Joshua and Shiloh (cf. 2 Sam. vii. 6). But the stories of
conflicts in a much larger area than the few cities in the immediate
neighbourhood of Jerusalem (see above) can scarcely be read with the
numerous narratives which recount or imply relations between the young
David of Bethlehem and Saul or the Israelites. It is possible,
therefore, that one early account of David was that of an entrance
into the land of Judah, and that round him have gathered traditions
partly individual and partly tribal or national. See further S. A.
Cook, _Critical Notes on O.T. History_, pp. 122 sqq., and art. JEWS
(_History_), SS 6-8.
LITERATURE.--Robertson Smith's later views subsequent to 1877 (when he
wrote the article on David for this _Encyclopaedia_) were expressed
partly in the _Old Test. in Jewish Church_ (1881 and 1892), _passim_,
and partly in the article on the Books of Samuel in the _Ency. Brit._
(9th ed.); on David's character see especially his criticism of Renan,
_Eng. Hist. Rev._, 1888, pp. 134 sqq. Mention may be made of
Stahelin's _Leben Davids_ (Basel, 1866), still valuable for the
numerous parallels adduced from oriental history; Cheyne's _Aids to
Devout Study of Criticism_ (1892), a criticism of David's history in
its bearing upon religion; Marcel Dieulafoy, _David the King_ (1902),
full, but not critical; H. A. White, Hastings' _Dict._ art. "David";
Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._ art. "David"; and (on the romantic element in the
narratives) Luther in Ed. Meyer, _Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme_
(1906), pp. 181 sqq. (W. R. S.; S. A. C.)