THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME VIII SLICE VIII
Dubner to Dyeing

Articles in This Slice

DÜBNER, JOHANN FRIEDRICH (1802-1867), German classical scholar (naturalized a Frenchman), was born in Hör selgau, near Gotha, on the 20th of December 1802. After studying at the university of Göttingen he returned to Gotha, where from 1827-1832 he held a post (inspector coenobii) in connexion with the gymnasium. During this period he made his name known by editions of Justin and Persius (after Casaubon). In 1832 he was invited by the brothers Didot to Paris, to co-operate in a new edition of H. Etienne’s Greek Thesaurus. He also contributed largely to the Bibliotheca Graeca published by the same firm, a series of Greek classics with Latin translation, critical notes and valuable indexes. One of Dübner’s most important works was an edition of Caesar undertaken by command of Napoleon III., which obtained him the cross of the Legion of Honour. His editions are considered to be models of literary and philological criticism, and did much to raise the standard of classical scholarship in France. He violently attacked Burnouf’s method of teaching Greek, but without result. Dübner may have gone too far in his zeal for reform, and his opinions may have been too harshly expressed, but time has shown him to be right. The old text-books have been discarded, and a great improvement in classical teaching has taken place in recent years. Dübner died at Montreuil-sous-Bois, near Paris, on the 13th of December 1867.

See F. Godefroy, Notice sur J.F. Dübner (1867); Sainte-Beuve, Discours à la mémoire de Dübner (1868); article in Allgemeine deutsche Biographic.

DUBOIS, FRANÇOIS CLÉMENT THÉODORE (1837-  ), French musical composer, was born at Rosney (Marne) on the 24th of August 1837. He studied at the Conservatoire under Ambroise Thomas, and won the Grand Prix de Rome in 1861 with his cantata Atala. After the customary sojourn in Rome, Dubois returned to Paris and devoted himself to teaching. He was appointed “maitre de Chapelle” at the church of Ste Clotilde, where César Franck was organist, in 1863, and remained at this post for five years, during which time he composed a quantity of sacred music, notably Les Sept Paroles du Christ (1867), a work which has become well known in France. In 1868 he became “maitre de Chapelle” at the church of the Madeleine, and nine years later succeeded Camille Saint-Saëns there as organist. He became professor of harmony at the Conservatoire in 1871, and was appointed professor of composition in succession to Léo Delibes in 1891. At the death of Ambroise Thomas in 1896 he became director of the Conservatoire. Dubois is an extremely prolific composer and has written in a variety of forms. His sacred works include four masses, a requiem, Les Sept Paroles du Christ, a large number of motets and pieces for organ. For the theatre he has composed La Guzla de l’Émir, an opéra comique in one act, played at the Théâtre Lyrique de l’Athénée in 1873; Le Pain bis, an opéra comique in one act, given at the Opéra Comique in 1879; La Farandole, a ballet in three acts, produced at the Grand Opéra in 1883; Aben-Hamet, a four-act opera, heard at the Théâtre Italien in 1884; Xavière, a dramatic idyll in three acts, played at the Opéra Comique in 1895. His orchestral works include two concert overtures, the overture to Frithioff (1880), several suites, Marche héroïque de Jeanne d’Arc (1888), &c. He is also the author of Le Paradis perdu, an oratorio which gained for him the prize offered by the city of Paris in 1878; L’Enlèvement de Proserpine (1879), a scène lyrique; Délivrance (1887), a cantata; Hylas (1890), a scène lyrique for soli, chorus and orchestra; Notre Dame de la mer, a symphonic poem (1897); and a musical setting of a Latin ode on the baptism of Clovis (1899). In addition, he composed much for the piano and voice.

DUBOIS, GUILLAUME (1656-1723), French cardinal and statesman, was born at Brive, in Limousin, on the 6th of September 1656. He was, according to his enemies, the son of an apothecary, his father being in fact a doctor of medicine of respectable family, who kept a small drug store as part of the necessary outfit of a country practitioner. He was educated at the school of the Brothers of the Christian Doctrine at Brive, where he received the tonsure at the age of thirteen. In 1672, having finished his philosophy course, he was given a scholarship at the college of St Michel at Paris by Jean, marquis de Pompadour, lieutenant-general of the Limousin. The head of the college, the abbé Antoine Faure, who was from the same part of the country as himself, befriended the lad, and continued to do so for many years after he had finished his course, finding him pupils and ultimately obtaining for him the post of tutor to the young duke of Chartres, afterwards the regent duke of Orleans. Astute, ambitious and unrestrained by conscience, Dubois ingratiated himself with his pupil, and, while he gave him formal school lessons, at the same time pandered to his evil passions and encouraged him in their indulgence. He gained the favour of Louis XIV. by bringing about the marriage of his pupil with Mademoiselle de Blois, a natural but legitimated daughter of the king; and for this service he was rewarded with the gift of the abbey of St Just in Picardy. He was present with his pupil at the battle of Steinkirk, and “faced fire,” says Marshal Luxembourg, “like a grenadier.” Sent to join the French embassy in London, he made himself so active that he was recalled by the request of the ambassador, who feared his intrigues. This, however, tended to raise his credit with the king. When the duke of Orleans became regent (1715) Dubois, who had for some years acted as his secretary, was made councillor of state, and the chief power passed gradually into his hands.

His policy was steadily directed towards maintaining the peace of Utrecht, and this made him the main opponent of the schemes of Cardinal Alberoni for the aggrandizement of Spain. To counteract Alberoni’s intrigues, he suggested an alliance with England, and in the face of great difficulties succeeded in negotiating the Triple Alliance (1717). In 1719 he sent an army into Spain, and forced Philip V. to dismiss Alberoni. Otherwise his policy remained that of peace. Dubois’s success strengthened him against the bitter opposition of a large section of the court. Political honours did not satisfy him, however. The church offered the richest field for exploitation, and in spite of his dissolute life he impudently prayed the regent to give him the archbishopric of Cambray, the richest in France. His demand was supported by George I., and the regent yielded. In one day all the usual orders were conferred on him, and even the great preacher Massillon consented to take part in the ceremonies. His next aim was the cardinalate, and, after long and most profitable negotiations on the part of Pope Clement XI., the red hat was given to him by Innocent XIII. (1721), whose election was largely due to the bribes of Dubois. It is estimated that this cardinalate cost France about eight million francs. In the following year he was named first minister of France (August). He was soon after received at the French Academy; and, to the disgrace of the French clergy, he was named president of their assembly.

When Louis XV. attained his majority in 1723 Dubois remained chief minister. He had accumulated an immense private fortune, possessing in addition to his see the revenues of seven abbeys. He was, however, a prey to the most terrible pains of body and agony of mind. His health was ruined by his debaucheries, and a surgical operation became necessary. This was almost immediately followed by his death, at Versailles, on the 10th of August 1723. His portrait was thus drawn by the duc de St Simon:—“He was a little, pitiful, wizened, herring-gutted man, in a flaxen wig, with a weasel’s face, brightened by some intellect. All the vices—perfidy, avarice, debauchery, ambition, flattery—fought within him for the mastery. He was so consummate a liar that, when taken in the fact, he could brazenly deny it. Even his wit and knowledge of the world were spoiled, and his affected gaiety was touched with sadness, by the odour of falsehood which escaped through every pore of his body.” This famous picture is certainly biassed. Dubois was unscrupulous, but so were his contemporaries, and whatever vices he had, he gave France peace after the disastrous wars of Louis XIV.

In 1789 appeared Vie privée du Cardinal Dubois, attributed to one of his secretaries, Mongez; and in 1815 his Mémoires secrets et correspondance inédite, edited by L. de Sevelinges. See also A. Cheruel, Saint-Simon et l’abbé Dubois; L. Wiesener, Le Régent, l’abbé Dubois et les Anglais (1891); and memoirs of the time.

DUBOIS, JEAN ANTOINE (1765-1848), French Catholic missionary in India, was ordained in the diocese of Viviers in 1792, and sailed for India in the same year under the direction of the Missions Étrangères. He was at first attached to the Pondicherry mission, and worked in the southern districts of the present Madras Presidency. On the fall of Seringapatam in 1799 he went to Mysore to reorganize the Christian community that had been shattered by Tipu Sultan. Among the benefits which he conferred upon his impoverished flock were the founding of agricultural colonies and the introduction of vaccination as a preventive of smallpox. But his great work was his record of Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies. Immediately on his arrival in India he saw that the work of a Christian missionary should be based on a thorough acquaintance with the innermost life and character of the native population. Accordingly he abjured European society, adopted the native style of clothing, and made himself in habit and costume as much like a Hindu as he could. He gained an extraordinary welcome amongst people of all castes and conditions, and is still spoken of in many parts of South India with affection and esteem as “the prince’s son, the noblest of Europeans.” Although Dubois modestly disclaimed the rank of an author, his collections were not so much drawn from the Hindu sacred books as from his own careful and vivid observations, and it is this, united to a remarkable prescience, that makes his work so valuable. It is divided into three parts: (1) a general view of society in India, and especially of the caste system; (2) the four states of Brahminical life; (3) religion—feasts, temples, objects of worship. Not only does the abbé give a shrewd, clear-sighted, candid account of the manners and customs of the Hindus, but he provides a very sound estimate of the British position in India, and makes some eminently just observations on the difficulties of administering the Empire according to Western notions of civilization and progress with the limited resources that are available. Dubois’s French MS. was purchased for eight thousand rupees by Lord William Bentinck for the East India Company in 1807; in 1816 an English translation was published, and of this edition about 1864 a curtailed reprint was issued. The abbé, however, largely recast his work, and of this revised text (now in the India Office) an edition with notes was published in 1897 by H.K. Beauchamp. Dubois left India in January 1823, with a special pension conferred on him by the East India Company, and on reaching Paris was appointed director of the Missions Étrangères, of which he afterwards became superior (1836-1839). He translated into French the famous book of Hindu fables called Panchatantra, and also a work called The Exploits of the Guru Paramarta. Of more interest were his Letters on the State of Christianity in India, in which he asserted his opinion that under existing circumstances there was no human possibility of so overcoming the invincible barrier of Brahminical prejudice as to convert the Hindus as a nation to any sect of Christianity. He acknowledged that low castes and outcastes might be converted in large numbers, but of the higher castes he wrote: “Should the intercourse between individuals of both nations, by becoming more intimate and more friendly, produce a change in the religion and usages of the country, it will not be to turn Christians that they will forsake their own religion, but rather ... to become mere atheists.” He died in 1848.

DUBOIS, PAUL (1829-1905), French sculptor and painter, was born at Nogent-sur-Seine on the 18th of July 1829. He studied law to please his family, and art to please himself, and finally adopted the latter, and placed himself under Toussaint. After studying at the École des Beaux-Arts, Dubois went to Rome. His first contributions to the Paris Salon (1860) were busts of “The Countess de B.” and “A Child.” For his first statues, “St John the Baptist” and “Narcissus at the Bath” (1863), he was awarded a medal of the second class. The statue of “The Infant St John,” which had been modelled in Florence in 1860, was exhibited in Paris in bronze, and was acquired by the Luxemburg. “A Florentine Singer of the Fifteenth Century,” one of the most popular statuettes in Europe, was shown in 1865; “The Virgin and Child” appeared in the Paris Universal Exhibition in 1867; “The Birth of Eve” was produced in 1873, and was followed by striking busts of Henner, Dr Parrot, Paul Baudry, Pasteur, Gounod and Bonnat, remarkable alike for life, vivacity, likeness, refinement and subtle handling. The chief work of Paul Dubois was “The Tomb of General Lamoricière” in the cathedral of Nantes, a brilliant masterpiece conceived in the Renaissance spirit, with allegorical figures and groups representing Warlike Courage, Charity, Faith and Meditation, as well as bas-reliefs and enrichments; the two first-named works were separately exhibited in the Salon of 1877. The medallions represent Wisdom, Hope, Justice, Force, Rhetoric, Prudence and Religion. The statue of the “Constable Anne de Montmorency” was executed for Chantilly, and that of “Joan of Arc” (1889) for the town of Reims. The Italian influence which characterized the earlier work of Dubois disappeared as his own individuality became clearly asserted. As a painter he restricted himself mainly to portraiture. “My Children” (1876) being probably his most noteworthy achievement. His drawings and copies after the Old Masters are of peculiar excellence: they include “The Dead Christ” (after Sebastian del Piombo) and “Adam and Eve” (after Raphael). In 1873 Dubois was appointed keeper of the Luxemburg Museum. He succeeded Guillaume as director of the École des Beaux-Arts, 1878, and Perraud as member of the Académie des Beaux-Arts. Twice at the Salon he obtained the medal of honour (1865 and 1876), and once at the Universal Exhibition (1878). He also won numerous other distinctions, and was appointed grand cross of the Legion of Honour. He was made a member of several European orders, and in 1895 was elected an honorary foreign academician of the Royal Academy of London. He died at Paris in 1905.

DUBOIS, PIERRE (c. 1250-c. 1312), French publicist in the reign of Philip the Fair, was the author of a series of political pamphlets embodying original and daring views. He was known to Jean du Tillet in the 16th, and to Pierre Dupuy in the 17th century, but remained practically forgotten until the middle of the 19th century, when his history was reconstructed from his works. He was a Norman by birth, probably a native of Coutances, where he exercised the functions of royal advocate of the bailliage and procurator of the university. He was educated at the university of Paris, where he heard St Thomas Aquinas and Siger of Brabant. He was, nevertheless, no adherent of the scholastic philosophy, and appears to have been conversant with the works of Roger Bacon. Although he never held any important political office, he must have been in the confidence of the court when, in 1300, he wrote his anonymous Summaria, brevis et compendiosa doctrina felicis expedicionis et abbreviationis guerrarum et litium regni Francorum, which is extant in a unique MS., but is analysed by N. de Wailly in the Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes (2nd series, vol. iii.). In the contest between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII. Dubois identified himself completely with the secularizing policy of Philip, and poured forth a series of anti-clerical pamphlets, which did not cease even with the death of Boniface. His Supplication du pueble de France au roy contre le pape Boniface le VIIIe, printed in 1614 in Acta inter Bonifacium VIII. et Philippum Pulchrum, dates from 1304, and is a heated indictment of the temporal power. He represented Coutances in the states-general of 1302, but in 1306 he was serving Edward I. as an advocate in Guienne, without apparently abandoning his Norman practice by which he had become a rich man. The most important of his works, his treatise De recuperatione terrae sanctae,[1] was written in 1306, and dedicated in its extant form to Edward I., though it is certainly addressed to Philip. Dubois outlines the conditions necessary to a successful crusade—the establishment and enforcement of a state of peace among the Christian nations of the West by a council of the church; the reform of the monastic, and especially of the military, orders; the reduction of their revenues; the instruction of a number of young men and women in oriental languages and the natural sciences with a view to the government of Eastern peoples; and the establishment of Philip of Valois as emperor of the East. The king of France was in fact, when once the pope was deprived of the temporal power, to become the suzerain of the Western nations, and in a later and separate memoir Dubois proposed that he should cause himself to be made emperor by Clement V. His zeal for the crusade was probably subordinate to the desire to secure the wealth of the monastic orders for the royal treasury, and to transfer the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the crown. His ideas on education, on the celibacy of the clergy, and his schemes for the codification of French law, were far in advance of his time. He was an early and violent “Gallican,” and the first of the great French lawyers who occupied themselves with high politics. In 1308 he attended the states-general at Tours. He is generally credited with Quaedam proposita papae a rege super facto Templariorum, a draft epistle supposed to be addressed to Clement by Philip. This was followed by other pamphlets in the same tone, in one of which he proposed that a kingdom founded on the property of the Templars in the East should be established on behalf of Philip the Tall.

See an article by E. Renan in Hist. litt. de la France, vol. xxvi. pp. 471-536; P. Dupuy Hist. de la condamnation ... des Templiers (Brussels, 1713), and Hist. du différend entre le pape Boniface VIII et Philippe le Bel (Paris 1655); and Notices et extraits de manuscrits, vol. xx.

[1] Printed in Collections à servir à l’étude de l’histoire (1891).

DUBOIS, a borough of Clearfield county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., 129 m. by rail N.E. of Pittsburg. Pop. (1890) 6149, (1900) 9375, of whom 1655 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 12,623. It is served by the Pennsylvania, the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg, and the Buffalo & Susquehanna railways. The borough is built on a small plateau surrounded by hills, on the west slope of the Alleghany Mountains, nearly 1400 ft. above sea-level. Its chief importance is as a coal and lumber centre; among its manufacturing establishments are blast furnaces, iron works, machine shops, railway repair shops, tanneries, planing mills, flour mills, locomotive works and a glass factory. Dubois was first settled in 1872, was named in honour of its founder, John Dubois, and was incorporated in 1881.

DUBOIS-CRANCÉ, EDMOND LOUIS ALEXIS (1747-1814), French Revolutionist, born at Charleville, was at first a musketeer, then a lieutenant of the maréchaux, or guardsmen of the old régime. He embraced liberal ideas, and in 1789 was elected deputy to the states-general by the third estate of Vitry-le-François. At the Constituent Assembly, of which he was named secretary in November 1789, he busied himself mainly with military reforms. He wished to see the old military system, with its caste distinctions and its mercenaries, replaced by an organization of national guards in which all citizens should be admitted. In his report, on the 12th of December 1789, he gave utterance for the first time to the idea of conscription, which he opposed to the recruiting system of the old régime. His report was not, however, adopted. He succeeded in securing the Assembly’s vote that any slave who touched French soil should become free. After the Constituent, Dubois-Crancé was named maréchal de camp, but he refused to be placed under the orders of Lafayette and preferred to serve as a simple grenadier. Elected to the Convention by the department of the Ardennes, he sat among the Montagnards, but without following any one leader, either Danton or Robespierre. In the trial of Louis XVI. he voted for death without delay or appeal. On the 21st of February 1793 he was named president of the Convention. Although he was a member of the two committees of general defence which preceded that of public safety, he did not belong to the latter at its creation. But he composed a remarkable report on the army, recommending two measures which contributed largely to its success, the rapid advancement of the lower officers, which opened the way for the most famous generals of the Revolution, and the fusion of the volunteers with the veteran troops. In August 1793 Dubois-Crancé was designated “representative on mission” to the army of the Alps, to direct the siege of Lyons, which had revolted against the republic. Accused of lack of energy, he was replaced by G. Couthon. On his return he easily justified himself, but was excluded from the Jacobin club at the instance of Robespierre, before whom he refused to bend. Consequently he was naturally drawn to participate in the revolution of the 9th of Thermidor of the year II., directed against Robespierre. But he would not join the Royalist reaction which followed, and was one of the committee of five which had to oppose the Royalist insurrection of Vendémiaire (see [French Revolution]). It was also during this period that Dubois-Crancé was named a member of the committee of public safety, then much reduced in importance. After the Convention, under the Directory, Dubois-Crancé was a member of the Council of the Five Hundred, and was appointed inspector-general of infantry; then, in 1799, minister of war. Opposed to the coup d’état of the 18th of Brumaire, he lived in retirement during the Consulate and the Empire. He died at Rethel on the 29th of June 1814. His portrait stands in the foreground in J.L. David’s celebrated sketch of the “Oath of the Tennis Court.”

Among the numerous writings of Dubois-Crancé may be noticed his Observations sur la constitution militaire, ou bases du travail proposé au comité militaire. See H.F.T. Jung, Dubois de Crancé. L’armée et la Révolution, 1789-1794 (2 vols., Paris, 1884).

DU BOIS-REYMOND, EMIL (1818-1896), German physiologist, was born in Berlin on the 7th of November 1818. The Prussian capital was the place both of his birth and of his life’s work, and he will always be counted among Germany’s great scientific men; yet he was not of German blood. His father belonged to Neuchâtel, his mother was of Huguenot descent, and he spoke of himself as “being of pure Celtic blood.” Educated first at the French college in Berlin, then at Neuchâtel, whither his father had returned, he entered in 1836 the university of Berlin. He seems to have been uncertain at first as to the bent of his studies, for he sat at the feet of the great ecclesiastical historian August Neander, and dallied with geology; but eventually he threw himself into the study of medicine, with such zeal and success as to attract the notice of the great teacher of anatomy and physiology, who was then making Berlin famous as a school for the sciences ancillary to medicine. Johannes Müller may be regarded as the central figure in the history of modern physiology. the physiology of the 19th century. Müller’s earlier studies had been distinctly physiological; but his inclination, no less than his position as professor of anatomy as well as of physiology in the university of Berlin, led him later on into wide studies of comparative anatomy, and these, aided by the natural bent of his mind towards problems of general philosophy, gave his views of physiology a breadth and a depth which profoundly influenced the progress of that science in his day. He had, about the time when the young Du Bois-Reymond came to his lectures, published his great Elements of Physiology, the dominant note of which may be said to be this:—“Though there appears to be something in the phenomena of living beings which cannot be explained by ordinary mechanical, physical or chemical laws, much may be so explained, and we may without fear push these explanations as far as we can, so long as we keep to the solid ground of observation and experiment.” Müller recognized in the Neuchâtel lad a mind fitted to carry on physical researches into the phenomena of living things in a legitimate way. He made him in 1840 his assistant in physiology, and as a starting-point for an inquiry put into his hands the essay which the Italian, Carlo Matteucci, had just published on the electric phenomena of animals. This determined the work of Du Bois-Reymond’s life. He chose as the subject of his graduation thesis “Electric Fishes,” and so commenced a long series of investigations on animal electricity, by which he enriched science and made for himself a name. The results of these inquiries were made known partly in papers communicated to scientific journals, but also and chiefly in his work Researches on Animal Electricity, the first part of which appeared in 1848, the last in 1884.

This great work may be regarded under two aspects. On the one hand, it is a record of the exact determination and approximative analysis of the electric phenomena presented by living beings. Viewed from this standpoint, it represents a remarkable advance of our knowledge. Du Bois-Reymond, beginning with the imperfect observations of Matteucci, built up, it may be said, this branch of science. He did so by inventing or improving methods, by devising new instruments of observation or by adapting old ones. The debt which science owes to him on this score is a large one indeed. On the other hand, the volumes in question contain an exposition of a theory. In them Du Bois-Reymond put forward a general conception by the help of which he strove to explain the phenomena which he had observed. He developed the view that a living tissue, such as muscle, might be regarded as composed of a number of electric molecules, of molecules having certain electric properties, and that the electric behaviour of the muscle as a whole in varying circumstances was the outcome of the behaviour of these native electric molecules. It may perhaps be said that this theory has not stood the test of time so well as have Du Bois-Reymond’s other more simple deductions from observed facts. It was early attacked by Ludimar Hermann, who maintained that a living untouched tissue, such as a muscle, is not the subject of electric currents so long as it is at rest, is isoelectric in substance, and therefore need not be supposed to be made up of electric molecules, all the electric phenomena which it manifests being due to internal molecular changes associated with activity or injury. Although most subsequent observers have ranged themselves on Hermann’s side, it must nevertheless be admitted that Du Bois-Reymond’s theory was of great value if only as a working hypothesis, and that as such it greatly helped in the advance of science.

Du Bois-Reymond’s work lay chiefly in the direction of animal electricity, yet he carried his inquiries—such as could be studied by physical methods—into other parts of physiology, more especially into the phenomena of diffusion, though he published little or nothing concerning the results at which he arrived. For many years, too, he exerted a great influence as a teacher. In 1858, upon the death of Johannes Müller, the chair of anatomy and physiology, which that great man had held, was divided into a chair of human and comparative anatomy, which was given to K.B. Reichert (1811-1883), and a chair of physiology, which naturally fell to Du Bois-Reymond. This he held to his death, carrying out his researches for many years under unfavourable conditions of inadequate accommodation. In 1877, through his influence, the government provided the university with a proper physiological laboratory. In 1851 he was admitted into the Academy of Sciences of Berlin, and in 1867 became its perpetual secretary. For many years he and his friend H. von Helmholtz, who like him had been a pupil of Johannes Müller, were prominent men in the German capital. Acceptable at court, they both used their position and their influence for the advancement of science. Both, from time to time as opportunity offered, stepped out of the narrow limits of the professorial chair and gave the world their thoughts concerning things on which they could not well dwell in the lecture room. Du Bois-Reymond, as has been said, had in his earlier years wandered into fields other than those of physiology and medicine, and in his later years he went back to some of these. His occasional discourses, dealing with general topics and various problems of philosophy, show that to the end he possessed the historic spirit which had led him as a lad to listen to Neander; they are marked not only by a charm of style, but by a breadth of view such as might be expected from Johannes Müller’s pupil and friend. He died in the city of his birth and adoption on the 26th of November 1896.

(M. F.)

DUBOS, JEAN-BAPTISTE (1670-1742), French author, was born at Beauvais in December 1670. After studying for the church, he renounced theology for the study of public law and politics. He was employed by M. de Torcy, minister of foreign affairs, and by the regent and Cardinal Dubois in several secret missions, in which he acquitted himself with great success. He was rewarded with a pension and several benefices. Having obtained these, he retired from political life, and devoted himself to history and literature. He gained such distinction as an author that in 1720 he was elected a member of the French Academy, of which, in 1723, he was appointed perpetual secretary in the room of M. Dacier. He died at Paris on the 23rd of March 1742, repeating as he expired the well-known remark of an ancient, “Death is a law, not a punishment.” His first work was L’Histoire des quatre Gordiens prouvée et illustrée par des médailles (Paris, 1695, 12mo), which, in spite of its ingenuity, did not succeed in altering the common opinion, which only admits three emperors of this name. About the commencement of the war of 1701, being charged with different negotiations both in Holland and in England, with the design to engage these powers if possible to adopt a pacific line of policy, he, in order to promote the objects of his mission, published a work entitled Les Intérêts de l’Angleterre mal entendus dans la guerre présente (Amsterdam, 1703, 12mo). But as this work contained indiscreet disclosures, of which the enemy took advantage, and predictions which were not fulfilled, a wag took occasion to remark that the title ought to be read thus: Les Intérêts de l’Angleterre mal entendus par l’abbé Dubos. It is remarkable as containing a distinct prophecy of the revolt of the American colonies from Great Britain. His next work was L’Histoire de la Ligue de Cambray (Paris, 1709, 1728 and 1785, 2 vols. 12mo), a full, clear and interesting history, which obtained the commendation of Voltaire. In 1734 he published his Histoire critique de l’établissement de la monarchie française dans les Gaules (3 vols. 4to)—a work the object of which was to prove that the Franks had entered Gaul, not as conquerors, but at the request of the nation, which, according to him, had called them in to govern it. But this system, though unfolded with a degree of skill and ability which at first procured it many zealous partisans, was victoriously refuted by Montesquieu at the end of the thirtieth book of the Esprit des lois. His Réflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture, published for the first time in 1719 (2 vols. 12mo), but often reprinted in three volumes, constitute one of the works in which the theory of the arts is explained with the utmost sagacity and discrimination. Like his history of the League of Cambray, it was highly praised by Voltaire. The work was rendered more remarkable by the fact that its author had no practical acquaintance with any one of the arts whose principles he discussed. Besides the works above enumerated, a manifesto of Maximilian, elector of Bavaria, against the emperor Leopold, relative to the succession in Spain, has been attributed to Dubos, chiefly, it appears, from the excellence of the style.

DUBUQUE, a city and the county-seat of Dubuque county, Iowa, U.S.A., on the Mississippi river, opposite the boundary line between Wisconsin and Illinois. Pop. (1890) 30,311; (1900) 36,297; (1905, state census) 41,941 (including 6835 foreign-born, the majority of whom were German and Irish); (1910 U.S. census) 38,494. Dubuque is served by the Illinois Central, the Chicago, Milwaukee & Saint Paul (which has repair shops here), the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, and the Chicago Great Western railways; it also has a considerable river traffic. The river is spanned here by a railway bridge and two wagon bridges. The business portion of the city lies on the low lands bordering the river; many of the residences are built on the slopes and summits of bluffs commanding extensive and picturesque views. Among the principal buildings are the Carnegie-Stout free public library (which in 1908 had 23,600 volumes, exclusive of the valuable Senator Allison collection of public documents), the public high school, and the house of the Dubuque Club. Dubuque is a Roman Catholic archiepiscopal see, and is the seat of St Joseph’s College (1873), a small Roman Catholic institution; of Wartburg Seminary (1854), a small Evangelical Lutheran theological school; of the German Presbyterian Theological School of the North-west (1852); of St Joseph’s Ladies’ Academy; and of Bayless Business College. Fifteen miles from Dubuque is a monastery of Trappist monks. Among the city’s charitable institutions are the Finley and the Mercy hospitals, a home for the friendless, a rescue home, a House of the Good Shepherd, and an insane asylum. In 1900 Dubuque ranked fourth and in 1905 fifth among the cities of the state as a manufacturing centre, the chief products being those of the planing mills and machine shops, and furniture, sashes and doors, liquors, carriages, wagons, coffins, clothing, boots and shoes, river steam boats, barges, torpedo boats, &c., and the value of the factory product being $9,279,414 in 1905 and $9,651,247 in 1900. The city lies in a region of lead and zinc mines, quantities of zinc ore in the form of black-jack being taken from the latter. Dubuque is important as a distributing centre for lumber, hardware, groceries and dry-goods.

As early as 1788 Julien Dubuque (1765-1810), attracted by the lead deposits in the vicinity, which were then being crudely worked by the Sauk and Fox Indians, settled here and carried on the mining industry until his death. In June 1829 miners from Galena, Illinois, attempted to make a settlement here in direct violation of Indian treaties, but were driven away by United States troops under orders from Colonel Zachary Taylor. Immediately after the Black Hawk War, white settlers began coming to the mines. Dubuque was laid out under an act of Congress approved on the 2nd of July 1836, and was incorporated in 1841.

DU CAMP, MAXIME (1822-1894), French writer, the son of a successful surgeon, was born in Paris on the 8th of February 1822. He had a strong taste for travel, which his father’s means enabled him to indulge as soon as his college days were over. Between 1844 and 1845, and again, in company with Gustave Flaubert, between 1849 and 1851, he travelled in Europe and the East, and made excellent use of his experiences in books published after his return. In 1851 he was one of the founders of the Revue de Paris (suppressed in 1858), and was a frequent contributor to the Revue des deux mondes. In 1853 he was made an officer of the Legion of Honour. He served as a volunteer with Garibaldi in 1860, and gave an account of his experiences in his Expédition des deux Siciles (1861). In 1870 he was nominated for the senate, but his election was frustrated by the downfall of the Empire. He was elected a member of the French Academy in 1880, mainly, it is said, on account of his history of the Commune, published under the title of Les Convulsions de Paris (1878-1880). His writings include among others the Chants modernes (1855), Convictions (1858); numerous works on travel, Souvenirs et paysages d’orient (1848), Égypte, Nubie, Palestine, Syrie (1852); works of art criticism, Les Salons de 1857, 1859, 1861; novels, L’Homme au bracelet d’or (1862), Une Histoire d’amour (1889); literary studies, Théophile Gautier (1890). Du Camp was the author of a valuable book on the daily life of Paris, Paris, ses organes, ses fonctions, sa vie dans la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle (1869-1875). He published several works on social questions, one of which, the Mœurs de mon temps, was to be kept sealed in the Bibliothèque Nationale until 1910. His Souvenirs littéraires (2 vols., 1882-1883) contain much information about contemporary writers, especially Gustave Flaubert, of whom Du Camp was an early and intimate friend. He died on the 9th of February 1894. Du Camp was one of the earliest amateur photographers, and his books of travel were among the first to be illustrated by means of what was then a new art.

DU CANGE, CHARLES DU FRESNE, Sieur (1610-1688), one of the lay members of the great 17th century group of French critics and scholars who laid the foundations of modern historical criticism, was born at Amiens on the 18th of December 1610. At an early age his father sent him to the Jesuits’ college at Amiens, where he greatly distinguished himself. Having completed the usual course at this seminary, he applied himself to the study of law at Orleans, and afterwards went to Paris, where in 1631 he was received as an advocate before the parliament. Meeting with very slight success in his profession, he returned to his native city, and in July 1638 married Catherine Dubois, daughter of a royal official, the treasurer in Amiens; and in 1647 he purchased the office of treasurer from his father-in-law, but its duties did not interfere with the literary and historical work to which he had devoted himself since returning to Amiens. Forced to leave his native city in 1668 in consequence of a plague, he settled in Paris, where he resided until his death on the 23rd of October 1688. In the archives of Paris Du Cange was able to consult charters, diplomas, manuscripts and a multitude of printed documents, which were not to be met with elsewhere. His industry was exemplary and unremitting, and the number of his literary works would be incredible, if the originals, all in his own handwriting, were not still extant. He was distinguished above nearly all the writers of his time by his linguistic acquirements, his accurate and varied knowledge, and his critical sagacity. Of his numerous works the most important are the Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis (Paris, 1678), and the Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis (Lyons, 1688), which are indispensable aids to the student of the history and literature of the middle ages. To the three original volumes of the Latin Glossarium, three supplementary volumes were added by the Benedictines of St Maur (Paris, 1733-1736), and a further addition of four volumes (Paris, 1766), by a Benedictine, Pierre Carpentier (1697-1767). There were other editions, and an abridgment with some corrections was brought out by J.C. Adelung (Halle, 1772-1784). The edition in seven volumes edited by G.A.L. Henschel (Paris, 1840-1850) includes these supplements and also further additions by the editor, and this has been improved and published in ten volumes by Léopold Favre (Niort, 1883-1887). An edition of the Greek Glossarium was published at Breslau in 1889.

Du Cange took considerable interest in the history of the later empire, and wrote Historia Byzantina duplici commentario illustrato (Paris, 1680), and an introduction to his edition and translation into modern French of Geoffrey de Villehardouin’s Histoire de l’empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs français (Paris, 1657). He also brought out editions of the Byzantine historians, John Cinnamus and John Zonaras, as Joannis Cinnami historiarum de rebus gestis a Joanne et Manuele Comnenis (Paris, 1670) and Joannis Zonarae Annales ab exordio mundi ad mortem Alexii Comneni (Paris, 1686). He edited Jean de Joinville’s Histoire de St Louis, roi de France (Paris, 1668), and his other works which may be mentioned are Traité historique du chef de St Jean Baptiste (Paris, 1666); Lettre du Sieur N., conseiller du roi (Paris, 1682); Cyrilli, Philoxeni, aliorumque veterum glossaria, and Mémoire sur le projet d’un nouveau recueil des historiens de France, avec le plan général de ce recueil, which has been inserted by Jacques Lelong in his Bibliothèque historique de la France (Paris, 1768-1778). His last work, Chronicon Paschale a mundo condito ad Heraclii imperatoris annum vigesimum (Paris, 1689), was passing through the press when Du Cange died, and consequently it was edited by Étienne Baluze, and published with an éloge of the author prefixed.

His autograph manuscripts and his large and valuable library passed to his eldest son, Philippe du Fresne, who died unmarried in 1692. They then came to his second son, François du Fresne, who sold the collection, the greater part of the manuscripts being purchased by the abbé du Champs. The abbé handed them over to a bookseller named Mariette, who resold part of them to Baron Hohendorf. The remaining part was acquired by a member of the family of Hozier, the French genealogists. The French government, however, aware of the importance of all the writings of Du Cange, succeeded, after much trouble, in collecting the greater portion of the manuscripts, which were preserved in the imperial library at Paris. Some of these were subsequently published, and the manuscripts are now found in various libraries. The works of Du Cange published after his death are: an edition of the Byzantine historian, Nicephorus Gregoras (Paris, 1702); De imperatorum Constantinopolitanorum seu inferioris aevi vel imperii uti vocant numismatibus dissertatio (Rome, 1755); Histoire de l’état de la ville d’Amiens et de ses comtes (Amiens, 1840); and a valuable work Des principautés d’outre-mer, published by E.G. Rey as Les Familles d’outre-mer (Paris, 1869).

See H. Hardouin, Essai sur la vie et sur les ouvrages de Ducange (Amiens, 1849); and L.J. Feugère, in the Journal de l’instruction publique (Paris, 1852).

DUCANGE, VICTOR HENRI JOSEPH BRAHAIN (1783-1833), French novelist and dramatist, was born on the 24th of November 1783 at the Hague, where his father was secretary to the French embassy. Dismissed from the civil service at the Restoration, Victor Ducange became one of the favourite authors of the liberal party, and owed some part of his popularity to the fact that he was fined and imprisoned more than once for his outspokenness. He was six months in prison for an article in his journal Le Diable rose, ou le petit courrier de Lucifer (1822); for Valentine (1821), in which the royalist excesses in the south of France were pilloried, he was again imprisoned; and after the publication of Hélène ou l’amour et la guerre (1823), he took refuge for some time in Belgium. Ducange wrote numerous plays and melodramas, among which the most successful were Marco Loricot, ou le petit Chouan de 1830 (1836), and Trente ans, ou la vie d’un joueur (1827), in which Fréderick Lemaître found one of his best parts. Many of his books were prohibited, ostensibly for their coarseness, but perhaps rather for their political tendencies. He died in Paris on the 15th of October 1833.

DUCAS, Dukas or Doukas, the name of a Byzantine family which supplied several rulers to the Eastern Empire. The family first came into prominence during the 9th century, but was ruined when Constantine Ducas, a son of the general Andronicus Ducas, lost his life in his effort to obtain the imperial crown in 913. Towards the end of the 10th century there appeared another family of Ducas, which was perhaps connected with the earlier family through the female line and was destined to attain to greater fortune. A member of this family became emperor as Constantine X. in 1059, and Constantine’s son Michael VII. ruled, nominally in conjunction with his younger brothers, Andronicus and Constantine, from 1071 to 1078. Michael left a son, Constantine, and, says Gibbon, “a daughter of the house of Ducas illustrated the blood, and confirmed the succession, of the Comnenian dynasty.” The family was also allied by marriage with other great Byzantine houses, and after losing the imperial dignity its members continued to take an active part in public affairs. In 1204 Alexius Ducas, called Mourzoufle, deposed the emperor Isaac Angelus and his son Alexius, and vainly tried to defend Constantinople against the attacks of the Latin crusaders. Nearly a century and a half later one Michael Ducas took a leading part in the civil war between the emperors John V. Palaeologus and John VI. Cantacuzenus, and Michael’s grandson was the historian Ducas (see below). Many of the petty sovereigns who arose after the destruction of the Eastern Empire sought to gain prestige by adding the famous name of Ducas to their own.

DUCAS (15th cent.), Byzantine historian, flourished under Constantine XIII. (XI.) Dragases, the last emperor of the East, about 1450. The dates of his birth and death are unknown. He was the grandson of Michael Ducas (see above). After the fall of Constantinople, he was employed in various diplomatic missions by Dorino and Domenico Gateluzzi, princes of Lesbos, where he had taken refuge. He was successful in securing a semi-independence for Lesbos until 1462, when it was taken and annexed to Turkey by Sultan Mahommed II. It is known that Ducas survived this event, but there is no record of his subsequent life. He was the author of a history of the period 1341-1462; his work thus continues that of Gregoras and Cantacuzene, and supplements Phrantzes and Chalcondyles. There is a preliminary chapter of chronology from Adam to John Palaeologus I. Although barbarous in style, the history of Ducas is both judicious and trustworthy, and it is the most valuable source for the closing years of the Greek empire. The account of the capture of Constantinople is of special importance. Ducas was a strong supporter of the union of the Greek and Latin churches, and is very bitter against those who rejected even the idea of appealing to the West for assistance against the Turks.

The history, preserved (without a title) in a single Paris MS., was first edited by I. Bullialdus (Bulliaud) (Paris, 1649); later editions are in the Bonn Corpus scriptorum Hist. Byz., by I. Bekker (1834) and Migne, Patrologia Graeca, clvii. The Bonn edition contains a 15th century Italian translation by an unknown author, found by Leopold Ranke in one of the libraries of Venice, and sent by him to Bekker.

DUCASSE, PIERRE EMMANUEL ALBERT, Baron (1813-1893), French historian, was born at Bourges on the 16th of November 1813. In 1849 he became aide-de-camp to Prince Jerome Bonaparte, ex-king of Westphalia, then governor of the Invalides, on whose commission he wrote Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de la campagne de 1812 en Russie (1852). Subsequently he published Mémoires du roi Joseph (1853-1855), and, as a sequel, Histoire des négociations diplomatiques relatives aux traités de Morfontaine, de Lunéville et d’Amiens, together with the unpublished correspondence of the emperor Napoleon I. with Cardinal Fesch (1855-1856). From papers in the possession of the imperial family he compiled Mémoires du prince Eugène (1858-1860) and Réfutation des mémoires du duc de Raguse (1857), part of which was inserted by authority at the end of volume ix. of the Mémoires. He was attaché to Jerome’s son, Prince Napoleon, during the Crimean War, and wrote a Précis historique des opérations militaires en Orient, de mars 1854 à octobre 1855 (1857), which was completed many years later by a volume entitled La Crimée et Sébastopol de 1853 à 1856, documents intimes et inédits, followed by the complete list of the French officers killed or wounded in that war (1892). He was also employed by Prince Napoleon on the Correspondance of Napoleon I., and afterwards published certain letters, purposely omitted there, in the Revue historique. These documents, subsequently collected in Les Rois frères de Napoléon (1883), as well as the Journal de la reine Catherine de Westphalie (1893), were edited with little care and are not entirely trustworthy, but their publication threw much light on Napoleon I. and his entourage. His Souvenirs d’un officier du 2e Zouaves, and Les Dessous du coup d’état (1891), contain many piquant anecdotes, but at times degenerate into mere tittle-tattle. Ducasse was the author of some slight novels, and from the practice of this form of literature he acquired that levity which appears even in his most serious historical publications.

DUCAT, the name of a coin, generally of gold, and of varying value, formerly in use in many European countries. It was first struck by Roger II. of Sicily as duke of Apulia, and bore an inscription “Sit tibi, Christe, datus, quem tu regis, iste ducatus” (Lord, thou rulest this duchy, to thee be it dedicated); hence, it is said, the name. Between 1280 and 1284 Venice also struck a gold coin, known first as the ducat, afterwards as the zecchino or sequin, the ducat becoming merely a money of account. The ducat was also current in Holland, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain and Denmark (see [Numismatics]). A gold coin termed a ducat was current in Hanover during the reigns of George I. and George III. A pattern gold coin was also struck by the English mint in 1887 for a proposed decimal coinage. On the reverse was the inscription “one ducat” within an oak wreath; above “one hundred pence,” and below the date between two small roses. There is a gold coin termed a ducat in the Austria-Hungary currency, of the value of nine shillings and fourpence.

DU CHAILLU, PAUL BELLONI (1835-1903), traveller and anthropologist, was born either at Paris or at New Orleans (accounts conflict) on the 31st of July 1835. In his youth he accompanied his father, an African trader in the employment of a Parisian firm, to the west coast of Africa. Here, at a station on the Gabun, the boy received some education from missionaries, and acquired an interest in and knowledge of the country, its natural history, and its natives, which guided him to his subsequent career. In 1852 he exhibited this knowledge in the New York press, and was sent in 1855 by the Academy of Natural Sciences at Philadelphia on an African expedition. From 1855 to 1859 he regularly explored the regions of West Africa in the neighbourhood of the equator, gaining considerable knowledge of the delta of the Ogowé river and the estuary of the Gabun. During his travels he saw numbers of the great anthropoid apes called the gorilla (possibly the great ape described by Carthaginian navigators), then known to scientists only by a few skeletons. A subsequent expedition, from 1863 to 1865, enabled him to confirm the accounts given by the ancients of a pygmy people inhabiting the African forests. Narratives of both expeditions were published, in 1861 and 1867 respectively, under the titles Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa, with Accounts of the Manners and Customs of the People, and of the Chace of the Gorilla, Crocodile, and other Animals; and A Journey to Ashango-land, and further penetration into Equatorial Africa. The first work excited much controversy on the score of its veracity, but subsequent investigation proved the correctness of du Chaillu’s statements as to the facts of natural history; though possibly some of the adventures he described as happening to himself were reproductions of the hunting stories of natives (see Proc. Zool. Soc. vol. i., 1905, p. 66). The map accompanying Ashango-land was of unique value, but the explorer’s photographs and collections were lost when he was forced to flee from the hostility of the natives. After some years’ residence in America, during which he wrote several books for the young founded upon his African adventures, du Chaillu turned his attention to northern Europe, and published in 1881 The Land of the Midnight Sun, in 1889 The Viking Age, and in 1900 The Land of the Long Night. He died at St Petersburg on the 29th of April 1903.

DUCHENNE, GUILLAUME BENJAMIN AMAND (1806-1875), French physician, was born on the 17th of September 1806 at Boulogne, the son of a sea-captain. He was educated at Douai, and then studied medicine in Paris until the year 1831, when he returned to his native town to practise his profession. Two years later he first tried the effect of electro-puncture of the muscles on a patient under his care, and from this time on devoted himself more and more to the medical applications of electricity, thereby laying the foundation of the modern science of electro-therapeutics. In 1842 he removed to Paris for the sake of its wider clinical opportunities, and there he worked until his death over thirty years later. His greatest work, L’Électrisation localisée (1855), passed through three editions during his lifetime, though by many his Physiologie des mouvements (1867) is considered his masterpiece. He published over fifty volumes containing his researches on muscular and nervous diseases, and on the applications of electricity both for diagnostic purposes and for treatment. His name is especially connected with the first description of locomotor ataxy, progressive muscular atrophy, pseudo-hypertrophic paralysis, glosso-labio laryngeal paralysis and other nervous troubles. He died in Paris on the 17th of September 1875.

For a detailed life see Archives générales de médicine (December 1875), and for a complete list of his works the 3rd edition of L’Électrisation localisée (1872).

DU CHESNE [Latinized Duchenius, Querneus, or Quercetanus], ANDRÉ (1584-1640), French geographer and historian, generally styled the father of French history, was born at Ile-Bouchard, in the province of Touraine, in May 1584. He was educated at Loudun and afterwards at Paris. From his earliest years he devoted himself to historical and geographical research, and his first work, Egregiarum seu selectarum lectionum et antiquitatum liber, published in his eighteenth year, displayed great erudition. He enjoyed the patronage of Cardinal Richelieu, a native of the same district with himself, through whose influence he was appointed historiographer and geographer to the king. He died in 1640, in consequence of having been run over by a carriage when on his way from Paris to his country house at Verrière. Du Chesne’s works were very numerous and varied, and in addition to what he published, he left behind him more than 100 folio volumes of manuscript extracts now preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale (L. Delisle, Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la bibliothèque impériale, t. L, 333-334). Several of his larger works were continued by his only son François du Chesne (1616-1693), who succeeded him in the office of historiographer to the king. The principal works of André du Chesne are—Les Antiquités et recherches de la grandeur et majesté des rois de France (Paris, 1609), Les Antiquités et recherches des villes, châteaux, &c., de toute la France (Paris, 1609), Histoire d’Angleterre, d’Écosse, et d’Irelande (Paris, 1614), Histoire des Papes jusqu’à Paul V (Paris, 1619), Histoire des rois, ducs, et comtes de Bourgogne (1619-1628, 2 vols. fol.), Historiae Normanorum scriptores antiqui (1619, fol., now the only source for some of the texts), and his Historiae Francorum scriptores (5 vols. fol., 1636-1649). This last was intended to comprise 24 volumes, and to contain all the narrative sources for French history in the middle ages; only two volumes were published by the author, his son François published three more, and the work remained unfinished. Besides these du Chesne published a great number of genealogical histories of illustrious families, of which the best is that of the house of Montmorency. His Histoire des cardinaux français (2 vols. fol. 1660-1666) and Histoire des chanceliers et gardes des sceaux de France (1630) were published by his son François. André also published a translation of the Satires of Juvenal, and editions of the works of Alcuin, Abelard, Alain Chartier and Étienne Pasquier.

DUCHESNE, LOUIS MARIE OLIVIER (1843-  ), French scholar and ecclesiastic, was born at Saint Servan in Brittany on the 13th of September 1843. Two scientific missions—to Mount Athos in 1874 and to Asia Minor in 1876—appeared at first to incline him towards the study of the ancient history of the Christian churches of the East. Afterwards, however, it was the Western church which absorbed almost his whole attention. In 1877 he received the degree of docteur ès lettres with two remarkable theses, a dissertation De Macario magnete, and an Étude sur le Liber pontificalis, in which he explained with unerring critical acumen the origin of that celebrated chronicle, determined the different editions and their interrelation, and stated precisely the value of his evidence. Immediately afterwards he was appointed professor at the Catholic Institute in Paris, and for eight years presented the example and model, then rare in France, of a priest teaching church history according to the rules of scientific criticism. His course, bold even to the point of rashness in the eyes of the traditionalist exegetists, was at length suspended. In November 1885 he was appointed lecturer at the École Pratique des Hautes Études. In 1886 he published volume i. of his learned edition of the Liber pontificalis (completed in 1892 by volume ii.), in which he resumed and completed the results he had attained in his French thesis. In 1888 he was elected member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and was afterwards appointed director of the French school of archaeology at Rome. Much light is thrown upon the Christian origins, especially those of France, by his Origines du culte chrétien, étude sur la liturgie latine avant Charlemagne (1889; Eng. trans. by M.L. McClure, Christian Worship: its Origin and Evolution, London, 1902, 2nd ed. 1904); Mémoire sur l’origine des diocèses épiscopaux dans l’ancienne Gaule (1890), the preliminary sketch of a more detailed work, Fastes épiscopaux dans l’ancienne Gaule (vol. i. Les provinces du sud-est, 1894, and vol. ii. L’Aquitaine et les Lyonnaises, 1899); and Catalogues épiscopaux de la province de Tours (1898). When a proposal was set on foot to bring about a reconciliation between the Roman Church and the Christian Churches of the East, the Abbé Duchesne endeavoured to show that the union of those churches was possible under the Roman supremacy, because unity did not necessarily entail uniformity. His Autonomies ecclésiastiques; églises séparées (1897), in which he speaks of the origin of the Anglican Church, but treats especially of the origin of the Greek Churches of the East, was received with scant favour in certain narrow circles of the pontifical court. In 1906 he began to publish, under the title of Histoire ancienne de l’église, a course of lectures which he had already delivered upon the early ages of the Church, and of which a few manuscript copies were circulated. The second volume appeared in 1908. In these lectures Duchesne touches cleverly upon the most delicate problems, and, without any elaborate display of erudition, presents conclusions of which account must be taken. His incisive style, his fearless and often ruthless criticism, and his wide and penetrating erudition, make him a redoubtable adversary in the field of polemic. The Bulletin critique, founded by him, for which he wrote numerous articles, has contributed powerfully to spread the principles of the historical method among the French clergy.

DUCIS, JEAN FRANÇOIS (1733-1816), French dramatist and adapter of Shakespeare, was born at Versailles on the 22nd of August 1733. His father, originally from Savoy, was a linen-draper at Versailles; and all through life he retained the simple tastes and straightforward independence fostered by his bourgeois education. In 1768 he produced his first tragedy, Amélise. The failure of this first attempt was fully compensated by the success of his Hamlet (1769), and Roméo et Juliette (1772). Œdipe chez Admète, imitated partly from Euripides and partly from Sophocles, appeared in 1778, and secured him in the following year the chair in the Academy left vacant by the death of Voltaire. Equally successful was Le Roi Lear in 1783. Macbeth in 1783 did not take so well, and Jean sans peur in 1791 was almost a failure; but Othello in 1792, supported by the acting of Talma, obtained immense applause. Its vivid picturing of desert life secured for Abufas, ou la famille arabe (1795), an original drama, a flattering reception. On the failure of a similar piece, Phédor et Vladimir ou la famille de Sibérie (1801), Ducis ceased to write for the stage; and the rest of his life was spent in quiet retirement at Versailles. He had been named a member of the Council of the Ancients in 1798, but he never discharged the functions of the office; and when Napoleon offered him a post of honour under the empire, he refused. Amiable, religious and bucolic, he had little sympathy with the fierce, sceptical and tragic times in which his lot was cast. “Alas!” he said in the midst of the Revolution, “tragedy is abroad in the streets; if I step outside of my door, I have blood to my very ankles. I have too often seen Atreus in clogs, to venture to bring an Atreus on the stage.” Though actuated by honest admiration of the great English dramatist, Ducis is not Shakespearian. His ignorance of the English language left him at the mercy of the translations of Pierre Letourneur (1736-1788) and of Pierre de la Place (1707-1793); and even this modified Shakespeare had still to undergo a process of purification and correction before he could be presented to the fastidious criticism of French taste. That such was the case was not, however, the fault of Ducis; and he did good service in modifying the judgment of his fellow countrymen. He did not pretend to reproduce, but to excerpt and refashion; and consequently the French play sometimes differs from its English namesake in everything almost but the name. The plot is different, the characters are different, the motif different, and the scenic arrangement different. To Othello, for instance, he wrote two endings. In one of them Othello was enlightened in time and Desdemona escaped her tragic fate. Le Banquet de l’amitié, a poem in four cantos (1771), Au roi de Sardaigne (1775), Discours de réception à l’académie française (1779), Épître à l’amitié (1786), and a Recueil de poésies (1809), complete the list of Ducis’s publications.

An edition of his works in three volumes appeared in 1813; Œuvres posthumes were edited by Campenon in 1826; and Hamlet, Œdipe chez Admète, Macbeth and Abufar are reprinted in vol. ii. of Didot’s Chefs-d’œuvre tragiques. See Onésime Leroy, Étude sur la personne et les écrits de Ducis (1832), based on Ducis’s own memoirs preserved in the library at Versailles; Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi, t. vi., and Nouveaux lundis, t. iv.; Villemain, Tableau de la litt. au XVIIIe siècle.

DUCK. (1) (From the verb “to duck,” to dive, put the head under water, in reference to the bird’s action, cf. Dutch duiker, Ger. Taucher, diving-bird, duiken, tauchen, to dip, dive, Dan. dukand, duck, and Ger. Ente, duck; various familiar and slang usages are based on analogy with the bird’s action), the general English name for a large number of birds forming the greater part of the family Anatidae of modern ornithologists. Technically the term duck is restricted to the female, the male being called drake (cognate with the termination of Ger. Enterich), and in one species mallard (Fr. Malart).

The Anatidae may be at once divided into six more or less well marked subfamilies—(1) the Cygninae or swans, (2) the Anserinae or geese—which are each very distinct, (3) the Anatinae or freshwater-ducks, (4) those commonly called Fuligulinae or sea-ducks, (5) the Erismaturinae or spiny-tailed ducks, and (6) the Merginae or mergansers.

The Anatinae are the typical group, and it is these only that are considered here. We start with the Anas boschas of Linnaeus, the common wild duck, which from every point of view is by far the most important species, as it is the most plentiful, the most widely distributed, and the best known—being indeed the origin of all the British domestic breeds. It inhabits the greater part of the northern hemisphere, reaching in winter so far as the Isthmus of Panama in the New World, and in the Old being abundant at the same season in Egypt and north-western India, while in summer it ranges throughout the Fur-Countries, Greenland, Iceland, Lapland and Siberia. Most of those which fill British markets are no doubt bred in more northern climes, but a considerable proportion of them are yet produced in the British Islands, though not in anything like the numbers that used to be supplied before the draining of the great fen-country and other marshy places. The wild duck pairs very early in the year—the period being somewhat delayed by hard weather, and the ceremonies of courtship, which require some little time. Soon after these are performed, the respective couples separate in search of suitable nesting-places, which are generally found, by those that remain with us, about the middle of March. The spot chosen is sometimes near a river or pond, but often very far removed from water, and it may be under a furze-bush, on a dry heath, at the bottom of a thick hedge-row, or even in any convenient hole in a tree. A little dry grass is generally collected, and on it the eggs, from 9 to 11 in number, are laid. So soon as incubation commences the mother begins to divest herself of the down which grows thickly beneath her breast-feathers, and adds it to the nest-furniture, so that the eggs are deeply imbedded in this heat-retaining substance—a portion of which she is always careful to pull, as a coverlet, over her treasures when she quits them for food. She is seldom absent from the nest, however, but once, or at most twice, a day, and then she dares not leave it until her mate, after several circling flights of observation, has assured her she may do so unobserved. Joining him the pair betake themselves to some quiet spot where she may bathe and otherwise refresh herself. Then they return to the nest, and after cautiously reconnoitring the neighbourhood, she loses no time in reseating herself on her eggs, while he, when she is settled, repairs again to the waters, and passes his day listlessly in the company of his brethren, who have the same duties, hopes and cares. Short and infrequent as are the absences of the duck when incubation begins, they become shorter and more infrequent towards its close, and for the last day or two of the 28 necessary to develop the young it is probable that she will not stir from the nest at all. When all the fertile eggs are hatched her next care is to get the brood safely to the water. This, when the distance is great, necessarily demands great caution, and so cunningly is it done that but few persons have encountered the mother and offspring as they make the dangerous journey.[1] If disturbed the young instantly hide as they best can, while the mother quacks loudly, feigns lameness, and flutters off to divert the attention of the intruder from her brood, who lie motionless at her warning notes. Once arrived at the water they are comparatively free from harm, though other perils present themselves from its inmates in the form of pike and other voracious fishes, which seize the ducklings as they disport in quest of insects on the surface or dive beneath it. Throughout the summer the duck continues her care unremittingly, until the young are full grown and feathered; but it is no part of the mallard’s duty to look after his offspring, and indeed he speedily becomes incapable of helping them, for towards the end of May he begins to undergo his extraordinary additional moult, loses the power of flight, and does not regain his full plumage till autumn. About harvest-time the young are well able to shift for themselves, and then resort to the corn-fields at evening, where they fatten on the scattered grain. Towards the end of September or beginning of October both old and young unite in large flocks and betake themselves to the larger waters. If long-continued frost prevail, most of the ducks resort to the estuaries and tidal rivers, or even leave these islands almost entirely. Soon after Christmas the return-flight commences, and then begins anew the course of life already described.

For the farmyard varieties, descending from Anas boschas, see [Poultry]. The domestication of the duck is very ancient. Several distinct breeds have been established, of which the most esteemed from an economical point of view are those known as the Rouen and Aylesbury; but perhaps the most remarkable deviation from the normal form is the so-called penguin-duck, in which the bird assumes an upright attitude and its wings are much diminished in size. A remarkable breed also is that often named (though quite fancifully) the “Buenos-Ayres” duck, wherein the whole plumage is of a deep black, beautifully glossed or bronzed. But this saturation, so to speak, of colour only lasts in the individual for a few years, and as the birds grow older they become mottled with white, though as long as their reproductive power lasts they “breed true.” The amount of variation in domestic ducks, however, is not comparable to that found among pigeons, no doubt from the absence of the competition which pigeon-fanciers have so long exercised. One of the most curious effects of domestication in the duck, however, is, that whereas the wild mallard is not only strictly monogamous, but, as Waterton believed, a most faithful husband, remaining paired for life, the civilized drake is notoriously polygamous.

Very nearly allied to the common wild duck are a considerable number of species found in various parts of the world in which there is little difference of plumage between the sexes—both being of a dusky hue—such as Anas obscura, the commonest river-duck of America, A. superciliosa of Australia, A. poecilorhyncha of India, A. melleri of Madagascar, A. xanthorhyncha of South Africa, and some others.

Among the other genera of Anatinae, we must content ourselves by saying that both in Europe and in North America there are the groups represented by the shoveller, garganey, gadwall, teal, pintail and widgeon—each of which, according to some systematists, is the type of a distinct genus. Then there is the group Aix, with its beautiful representatives the wood-duck (A. sponsa) in America and the mandarin-duck (A. galericulata) in Eastern Asia. Besides there are the sheldrakes (Tadorna), confined to the Old World and remarkably developed in the Australian Region; the musk-duck (Cairina) of South America, which is often domesticated and in that condition will produce hybrids with the common duck; and finally the tree-ducks (Dendrocygna), which are almost limited to the tropics. (For duck-shooting, see [Shooting].)

(A. N.)

2 (Probably derived from the Dutch doeck, a coarse linen material, cf. Ger. Tuch, cloth), a plain fabric made originally from tow yarns. The cloth is lighter than canvas or sailcloth, and differs from these in that it is almost invariably single in both warp and weft. The term is also used to indicate the colour obtained at a certain stage in the bleaching of flax yarns; it is a colour between half-white and cream, and this fact may have something to do with the name. Most of the flax ducks (tow yarns) appear in this colour, although quantities are bleached or dyed. Some of the ducks are made from long flax, dyed black, and used for kit-bags, while the dyed tow ducks may be used for inferior purposes. The fabric, in its various qualities and colours, is used for an enormous variety of purposes, including tents, wagon and motor hoods, light sails, clothing, workmen’s overalls, bicycle tubes, mail and other bags and pocketings. Russian duck is a fine white linen canvas.

[1] When ducks breed in trees, the precise way in which the young get to the ground is still a matter of uncertainty. The mother is supposed to convey them in her bill, and most likely does so, but they are often simply allowed to fall.

DUCKING and CUCKING STOOLS, chairs used for the punishment of scolds, witches and prostitutes in bygone days. The two have been generally confused, but are quite distinct. The earlier, the Cucking-stool[1] or Stool of Repentance, is of very ancient date, and was used by the Saxons, who called it the Scealding or Scolding Stool. It is mentioned in Domesday Book as in use at Chester, being called cathedra stercoris, a name which seems to confirm the first of the derivations suggested in the footnote below. Seated on this stool the woman, her head and feet bare, was publicly exposed at her door or paraded through the streets amidst the jeers of the crowd. The Cucking-stool was used for both sexes, and was specially the punishment for dishonest brewers and bakers. Its use in the case of scolding women declined on the introduction in the middle of the 16th century of the Scold’s Bridle (see [Branks]), and it disappears on the introduction a little later of the Ducking-stool. The earliest record of the use of this latter is towards the beginning of the 17th century. It was a strongly made wooden armchair (the surviving specimens are of oak) in which the culprit was seated, an iron band being placed around her so that she should not fall out during her immersion. Usually the chair was fastened to a long wooden beam fixed as a seesaw on the edge of a pond or river. Sometimes, however, the Ducking-stool was not a fixture but was mounted on a pair of wooden wheels so that it could be wheeled through the streets, and at the river-edge was hung by a chain from the end of a beam. In sentencing a woman the magistrates ordered the number of duckings she should have. Yet another type of Ducking-stool was called a tumbrel. It was a chair on two wheels with two long shafts fixed to the axles. This was pushed into the pond and then the shafts released, thus tipping the chair up backwards. Sometimes the punishment proved fatal, the unfortunate woman dying of shock. Ducking-stools were used in England as late as the beginning of the 19th century. The last recorded cases are those of a Mrs Ganble at Plymouth (1808); of Jenny Pipes, “a notorious scold” (1809), and Sarah Leeke (1817), both of Leominster. In the last case the water in the pond was so low that the victim was merely wheeled round the town in the chair.

See W. Andrews, Old Time Punishments (Hull, 1890); A.M. Earle, Curious Punishments of Bygone Days (Chicago, 1896); W.C. Hazlitt, Faiths and Folklore (London, 1905); Llewellynn Jewitt in The Reliquary, vols. i. and ii. (1860-1862); Gentleman’s Magazine for 1732.

[1] Probably from “cuck,” to void excrement; but variously connected with Fr. coquin, rascal.

DUCKWEED, the common botanical name for species of Lemna which form a green coating on fresh-water ponds and ditches. The plants are of extremely simple structure and are the smallest and least differentiated of flowering plants. They consist of a so-called “frond”—a flattened green more or less oval structure which emits branches similar to itself from lateral pockets at or near the base. From the under surface a root with a well-developed sheath grows downwards into the water. The flowers, which are rarely found in Britain, are developed in one of the lateral pockets. The inflorescence is a very simple one, consisting of one or two male flowers each comprising a single stamen, and a female flower comprising a flask-shaped pistil. The order Lemnaceae to which they belong is regarded as representing a very reduced type nearly allied to the Aroids. It is represented in Britain by four species of Lemna, and a still smaller and simpler plant, Wolffia, in which the fronds are only one-twentieth of an inch long and have no roots.

DUCKWORTH, SIR JOHN THOMAS (1748-1817), British admiral, was born at Leatherhead, in Surrey, on the 28th of February 1748. He entered the navy in 1759, and obtained his commission as lieutenant in June 1770, when he was appointed to the “Princess Royal,” the flagship of Admiral Byron, in which he sailed to the West Indies. While serving on board this vessel he took part in the engagement with the French fleet under Count D’Estaing. In July 1779 he became commander, and was appointed to the “Rover” sloop; in June of the following year he attained the rank of post-captain. Soon afterwards he returned to England in charge of a convoy. The outbreak of the war with France gave him his first opportunity of obtaining marked distinction. Appointed first to the “Orion” and then to the “Queen” in the Channel Fleet, under the command of Lord Howe, he took part in the three days’ naval engagement with the Brest fleet, which terminated in a glorious victory on the 1st of June 1794. For his conduct on this occasion he received a gold medal and the thanks of parliament. He next proceeded to the West Indies, where he was stationed for some time at St Domingo. In 1798 he commanded the “Leviathan” in the Mediterranean, and had charge of the naval detachment which, in conjunction with a military force, captured Minorca. Early in 1799 he was raised to the rank of rear-admiral, and sent to the West Indies to succeed Lord Hugh Seymour. During the voyage out he captured a valuable Spanish convoy of eleven merchantmen. In March 1801 he was the naval commander of the combined force which reduced the islands of St Bartholomew and St Martin, a service for which he was rewarded with the order of the Bath and a pension of £1000 a year. Promoted to be vice-admiral of the blue, he was appointed in 1804 to the Jamaica station. Two years later, while cruising off Cadiz with Lord Collingwood, he was detached with his squadron to pursue a French fleet that had been sent to the relief of St Domingo. He came up with the enemy on the 6th February 1806, and, after two hours’ fighting, inflicted a signal defeat upon them, capturing three of their five vessels and stranding the other two. For this, the most distinguished service of his life, he received the thanks of the Jamaica assembly, with a sword of the value of a thousand guineas, the thanks of the English parliament, and the freedom of the city of London. In 1807 he was again sent to the Mediterranean to watch the movements of the Turks. In command of the “Royal George” he forced the passage of the Dardanelles, but sustained considerable loss in effecting his return, the Turks having strengthened their position while he was being kept in play by their diplomatists and Napoleon’s ambassador General Sebastiani. He held the command of the Newfoundland fleet for four years from 1810, and at the close of that period he was made a baronet. In 1815 he was appointed to the chief command at Plymouth, which he held until his death on the 14th of April 1817. Sir John Duckworth sat in parliament for some time as member for New Romney.

See Naval Chronicle, xviii.; Ralfe’s Naval Biography, ii.

DUCLAUX, AGNES MARY F. (1856-  ), English poet and critic, who first became known in England under her maiden name of Mary F. Robinson, was born at Leamington on the 27th of February 1856. She was educated at University College, London, devoting herself chiefly to the study of Greek literature. Her first volume of poetry, A Handful of Honeysuckle, was published in 1879. Her next work was a translation from Euripides, The Crowned Hippolytus (1881). Monographs on Emily Brontë (1883) and on Marguerite of Angoulême (1886) followed; and The New Arcadia and other Poems (1884) and An Italian Garden (1886) contain some of her best verses. Her poems attracted the attention of the orientalist, James Darmesteter (q.v.), then in Peshawur, and he made an admirable translation of them in French. The acquaintance led to their marriage in 1888, and from that time a large part of her work was done in French. Madame Darmesteter translated her husband’s Études anglaises into English (1896). Her most considerable prose work is the Life of Ernest Renan (1897). She also wrote the End of the Middle Ages (1888); the volume on Froissart (1894) in the Grands écrivains français; essays on the Brontës, the Brownings and others, entitled Grands écrivains d’Outre-Manche (1901). After Darmesteter’s death, she married in 1901 Émile Duclaux, the associate of Pasteur, and director of the Pasteur institute. He died in 1904. She published Retrospect and other Poems in 1893, and in 1904 appeared The Return to Nature, Songs and Symbols. The qualities of Mary Robinson’s work, its conciseness and purity of expression, were only gradually recognized. Her Collected Poems, Lyrical and Narrative were published in 1902.

DUCLOS, CHARLES PINOT (1704-1772), French author, was born at Dinan, in Brittany, in 1704. At an early age he was sent to study at Paris. After some time spent in dissipation he began to cultivate the society of the wits of the time, and became a member of the club or association of young men who published their joint efforts in light literature under the titles of Recueil de ces messieurs, Étrennes de la St-Jean, Œufs de Pâques, &c. His romance of Acajou and Zirphile, composed to suit a series of plates which had been engraved for another work, was one of the fruits of this association, and was produced in consequence of a sort of wager amongst its members. Duclos had previously written two other romances, which were more favourably received—The Baroness de Luz (1741), and the Confessions of the Count de*** (1747). His first serious publication was the History of Louis XI., which is dry and epigrammatical in style, but displays considerable powers of research and impartiality. The reputation of Duclos as an author was confirmed by the publication of his Considérations sur les mœurs de ce siècle (1751), a work justly praised by Laharpe, as containing a great deal of sound and ingenious reflection. It was translated into English and German. The Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du dix-huitième siècle, intended by the author as a sort of sequel to the preceding work, are much inferior in style and matter, and are, in reality, little better than a kind of romance. In consequence of his History of Louis XI., he was appointed historiographer of France, when that place became vacant on Voltaire’s retirement to Prussia. His Secret Memoirs of the Reigns of Louis XIV. and Louis XV. (for which he was able to utilize the Mémoires of Saint Simon, suppressed in 1755), were not published until after the Revolution.

Duclos became a member of the Academy of Inscriptions in 1739, and of the French Academy in 1747, being appointed perpetual secretary in 1747. Both academies were indebted to him not only for many valuable contributions, but also for several useful regulations and improvements. As a member of the Academy of Inscriptions, he composed several memoirs on trial by combat, on the origin and revolutions of the Celtic and French languages, and on scenic representations and the ancient drama. As a member of the French Academy, he assisted in compiling the new edition of the Dictionary, which was published in 1762; and he made some just and philosophical remarks on the Port Royal Grammar. On several occasions he distinguished himself by vindicating the honour and prerogatives of the societies to which he belonged, and the dignity of the literary character in general. He used to say of himself, “I shall leave behind me a name dear to literary men.” The citizens of Dinan, whose interests he always supported with zeal, appointed him mayor of their town in 1744, though he was resident at Paris, and in this capacity he took part in the assembly of the estates of Brittany. Upon the requisition of this body the king granted him letters of nobility. In 1763 he was advised to retire from France for some time, having rendered himself obnoxious to the government by the opinions he had expressed on the dispute between the duc d’Aiguillon and M. de la Chalotais, the friend and countryman of Duclos. Accordingly he set out first for England (1763), then for Italy (1766); and on his return he wrote his Considerations on Italy. He died at Paris on the 26th of March 1772. The character of Duclos was singular in its union of impulsiveness and prudence. Rousseau described him very laconically as a man droit et adroit. In his manners he displayed a sort of bluntness in society, which frequently rendered him disagreeable; and his caustic wit on many occasions created enemies. To those who knew him, however, he was a pleasant companion. A considerable number of his bons mots have been preserved by his biographers.

A complete edition of the works of Duclos, including an unfinished autobiography, was published by Auger (1821). See also Saint-Beuve, Causeries du lundi, t. ix.; René Kerviler, La Bretagne et l’Académie française du XVIIIe siècle (1889); L. Mandon, De la valeur historique des mèmoires secrets de Duclos (1872).

DUCOS, PIERRE ROGER (1754-1816), French politician and director, was born at Dax. He was an advocate when elected deputy to the Convention by the department of the Landes. He sat in the “Plain,” i.e. in the party which had no opinion of its own, which always leaned to the stronger side. He voted for the death of Louis XVI., without appeal or delay, but played no noticeable part in the Convention. He was a member of the Council of the Five Hundred, over which he presided on the 18th of Fructidor in the year V. (see [French Revolution]). At the end of his term he became a judge of the peace, but after the parliamentary coup d’état of the 30th of Prairial of the year VIII. he was named a member of the executive Directory, thanks to the influence of Barras, who counted on using him as a passive instrument. Ducos accepted the coup d’état of Bonaparte on the 18th of Brumaire, and was one of the three provisional consuls. He became vice-president of the senate. The Empire heaped favours upon him, but in 1814 he abandoned Napoleon, and voted for his deposition. He sought to gain the favour of the government of the Restoration, but in 1816 was exiled in virtue of the law against the regicides. He died in March 1816 at Ulm, from a carriage accident. In spite of his absolute lack of talent, he attained the highest of positions—an exceptional fact in the history of the French Revolution.

DUCTLESS GLANDS, in anatomy. A certain number of glands in the body, often of great physiological importance, have no ducts (Lat. ductus, from ducere, to lead, i.e. vessels, tubes or canals for conveying away fluid or other substance); and their products, known as internal secretions, are at once carried away by the veins or lymphatics which drain them. Among these structures are the spleen, the adrenals, the thyroid gland, the parathyroids, the thymus and the carotid and coccygeal bodies. In addition to these the lymphatic glands are described in the article on the lymphatic system (q.v.), and the pineal and pituitary bodies in the article on the brain (q.v.).

The Spleen

The human spleen (Gr. σπλήν) is an oval, flattened gland, of a dull purple colour, and about 5 in. long by 3 broad, situated in the upper and back part of the left side of the abdominal cavity. If the right hand is passed round the left side of its owner’s body, as far as it will reach, it approximately covers the spleen. The long axis of the organ is obliquely placed so that the upper pole is much nearer the vertebral column than the lower pole. For practical purposes the long axis of the left tenth rib corresponds with that of the spleen. There is an external or parietal surface and an internal or visceral, the latter of which is again subdivided; these surfaces are limited by ventral and dorsal borders. The external, parietal, or phrenic surface is convex to adapt it to the concavity of the diaphragm, against the posterior part of which it lies; external to the diaphragm is the pleural cavity, and more externally still, the ninth, tenth and eleventh ribs. The internal or visceral surface is divided by a prominent ridge into a gastric or anterior and a renal or posterior surface. Sometimes a triangular impression called the basal surface is formed at the lower part of the visceral surface by the left end of the transverse colon, though at other times no such impression is seen. It is probable that the exact shape of the spleen depends a good deal on the amount of distension of the surrounding hollow viscera at the time of death. (For details of the basal surface see D.J. Cunningham, Journ. Anat. and Phys. vol. xxix. p. 501.) The gastric surface is concave and adapts itself to the fundus of the stomach, while just in front of the ridge separating the gastric and renal surfaces is the hilum, where the vessels enter and leave the organ; in front of this the tail of the pancreas usually touches the spleen. The renal surface is as a rule smaller than the gastric and, like it, is concave; it is moulded on to the upper part of the outer border of the left kidney and just reaches the left adrenal body. The anterior or ventral border of the spleen has usually two or more notches in it, though these are often also seen on the dorsal border. The whole spleen is surrounded by peritoneum, which is reflected off on to the stomach as the gastro-splenic omentum, and on to the kidney as the lieno-renal ligament; occasionally the lesser sac reaches it near its connexion with the pancreas. Small accessory spleens are fairly often found in the neighbourhood of the spleen, though it is possible that some of these may be haemo-lymph glands (see [Lymphatic System]).

Microscopically the spleen has a fibro-elastic coat in which involuntary muscle is found (fig. 2). This coat sends multitudes of fine trabeculae into the interior of the organ, which subdivide it into numbers of minute compartments, in which the red, highly vascular, spleen pulp is contained. This pulp contains small spherical masses of adenoid tissue, forming the Malpighian corpuscles, situated on the terminal branches of the splenic blood-vessels, together with numerous cells, some of which are red blood corpuscles, others lymph corpuscles, others contain pigment granules or fat, while others have in their interior numerous blood corpuscles. The arteries of the spleen in part end in capillaries from which the veins arise, but more frequently they open into lacunae or blood spaces, which give origin to the veins.

Embryology.—The spleen is developed in the dorsal mesogastrium (see [Coelom and Serous Membranes]) from the mesenchyme, or that portion of the mesoderm, the cells of which lie scattered in a matrix. Large lymphoid cells are early seen among those of the mesenchyme, but whether these migrate from the coelomic epithelium, or are originally mesenchymal is doubtful, though the former seems more probable. The network of the spleen seems certainly to be derived from cells of the mesenchyme which lose their nuclei.

Comparative Anatomy.—The spleen is regarded as the remains of a mass of lymphoid tissue which, in a generalized type of vertebrate, stretched all along the alimentary canal. It is absent as a distinct gland in the Acrania and Cyclostomata. In the fishes it is closely applied to the U-shaped stomach, and in some of the Elasmobranchs, e.g. the basking and porbeagle sharks (Selache and Lamna), it is divided into small lobules. In Protopterus among the Dipnoi it is enclosed within the walls of the stomach. In the Anura (frogs and toads) among the Amphibia it is a spherical mass close to the rectum, and this may be explained by regarding it as derived from a different part of the original mass, already mentioned, to that which persists in other vertebrates. In the Iguana among the reptiles the organ has many notches, and each one corresponds to the point of entrance of a vessel. In Mammals the notches, when they are present, so frequently correspond to the points of entrance of arteries at the hilum that the present writer believes that the former are determined by the latter in many cases (see F.G. Parsons on the Notches of the Spleen, J. Anat. and Phys. vol. 35, p. 416; also Charnock Bradley, Proceedings of R. Soc. Edin., vol. 24, pt. 6, p. 521). The Monotremata and Marsupialia have curious Y-shaped spleens. As a rule flesh-eating animals have larger and more notched spleens than vegetable feeders, though among the Cetacea the spleen is relatively very small.

Adrenal Glands

The adrenal glands or suprarenal capsules are two conical bodies, flattened from before backward, resting on the upper poles of the kidneys close to the sides of the vertebral column; each has an anterior and posterior surface and a concave base which is in contact with the kidney. When viewed from in front the right gland is triangular and the left crescentic. On the anterior surface there is a transverse sulcus or hilum from which a large vein emerges. The arteries are less constant in their points of entry, and are derived from three sources, the phrenic, the abdominal aorta and the renal arteries. The glands are entirely retro-peritoneal, though the right one, even on its anterior surface, is very little covered by peritoneum. In a vertical transverse section each gland is seen to consist of two parts, cortical and medullary. The cortical substance is composed of bundles of cells, separated by a stroma, which have a different appearance in different parts. Most superficially is the zona glomerulosa, then the zona fascicularis, and most deeply the zona reticularis. These names convey a fair idea of the appearance of the bundles. To the naked eye the cortical part is yellow while the medullary is red. The medullary part consists of small islets of cells, which resemble columnar epithelium lying among venous sinuses; these cells are said to be in close connexion with the sympathetic nerve filaments from the great solar plexus.

Embryology.—The generally accepted opinion at present is that the cortical substance is derived from the coelomic epithelium covering the mesoderm of the upper (cephalic) portion of the Wolffian body, and corresponds to the nephrostomes of mesonephridial tubules (see [Urinary System]), while the medullary part grows out from the sympathetic ganglia and so is probably ectodermal in origin. J. Janosik, however (Archiv. f. mikrosk. Anat. bd. xxii. 1883 and Sitzungsber. d. Wiener Akad., 1885), thinks that the cortical part is derived from the germ epithelium covering the upper part of the genital ridge. C.S. Minot (Human Embryology, 1897) believes that the original cells which grow in from the sympathetic disappear later, and that the adult medullary cells are derived from the cortical.

In the early human embryo the adrenals are larger than the kidneys, and at birth they are proportionately much larger than in the adult. (For literature see. Development of the Human Body, J.P. McMurrich, London, 1906; and Handbuch der Entwickelungslehre, by O. Hertwig, Jena.)

Comparative Anatomy.—Adrenals are unknown in Amphioxus and the Dipnoi (mud fish). In the Cyclostomata (hags and lampreys) they are said by some to arise in connexion with the cephalic part of the pronephros, though other writers deny their presence at all (see W.E. Collinge and Swale Vincent, Anat. Anz. bd. xii., 1896). In the Elasmobranchs and Holocephali the medullary and cortical parts are apparently distinct, the former being represented by a series of organs situated close to the intercostal arteries, while the latter may be either median or paired, and, as they are placed between the kidneys, are often spoken of as interrenals. In the Amphibia the glands are sunk into the surface of the kidney. In reptiles and birds they are long lobulated bodies lying close to the testis or ovary and receiving an adrenal portal vein. In the lower mammals they are not as closely connected with the kidneys as they are in man, and their shape is usually oval or spherical.

The Thyroid Gland

The thyroid body or gland is a deep red glandular mass consisting of two lobes which lie one on each side of the upper part of the trachea and lower part of the larynx; these are joined across the middle line by the isthmus which lies in front of the second and third rings of the trachea. Occasionally, from the top of the isthmus, a nearly but not quite median pyramidal lobe runs up toward the hyoid bone, while in other cases the isthmus may be absent. The gland is relatively larger in women and children than in the adult male. It is enclosed in a capsule of cervical fascia and is supplied by the superior and inferior thyroid arteries on each side, though occasionally a median thyroidea ima artery is present. On microscopical examination the gland shows a large number of closed tubular alveoli, lined by columnar epithelial cells, unsupported by a basement membrane, and filled with colloid or jelly-like material. These are supported by fibrous septa growing in from the true capsule, which is distinct from the capsule of cervical fascia. The lymphatic vessels are large and numerous, and have been shown by E.C. Baber (Phil. Trans., 1881) to contain the same colloid material as the alveoli. Accessory thyroids, close to the main gland, are often found.

Embryology.—The median part of the gland is developed from a tube which grows down in the middle line from the junction of the buccal and pharyngeal parts of the tongue (q.v.), between the first and second branchial arches. This tube is called the thyro-glossal duct and is entodermal in origin. The development of the hyoid bone obliterates the middle part of the duct, leaving its upper part as the foramen caecum of the tongue, while its lower part bifurcates, and so the asymmetrical arrangement of the pyramidal lobe is accounted for. A. Kanthack (J. Anat. and Phys. vol. xxv., 1891) has denied the existence of this duct, but on slender grounds. The lateral parts of the gland are developed from the entoderm of the fourth visceral clefts, and, joining the median part, lose their pharyngeal connexion. Nearly, but not quite, the whole of the lateral lobes probably belong to this part. (For literature and further details see Quain’s Anatomy, London, 1892, and J.P. McMurrich’s Development of the Human Body, London, 1906.)

Comparative Anatomy.—The endostyle or hypobranchial groove of Tunicata (sea squirts) and Acrania (Amphioxus) is regarded as the first appearance of the median thyroid; this is a median entodermal groove in the floor of the pharynx, secreting a glairy fluid in which food particles become entangled and so pass into the intestine. In the larval lamprey (Ammocoetes) among the Cyclostomata the connexion with the pharynx is present, but in the adult lamprey (Petromyzon), as in all adult vertebrates, this connexion is lost. In the Elasmobranchs the single median thyroid lies close to the mandibular symphysis, but in the bony fish (Teleostei) it is paired. In the mud fish (Dipnoi) there is also an indication of a division into two lobes. In the Amphibia the thyroid forms numerous vesicles close to the anterior end of the pericardium. In Reptilia it lies close to the trachea, and in the Chelonia and Crocodilia is paired. In birds it is also paired and lies near the origin of the carotid arteries. In Mammalia the lateral lobes make their first appearance. In the lower orders of this class the isthmus is often absent. (For further details and literature see R. Wiedersheim’s Vergleichende Anatomie der Wirbeltiere, Jena, 1902, and also for literature, Quain’s Anatomy, London, 1896.)

Parathyroid Glands

These little oval bodies, of considerable physiological importance, are two in number on each side. From their position they are spoken of as postero-superior and antero-inferior; the postero-superior are embedded in the thyroid at the level of the lower border of the cricoid cartilage, while the antero-inferior may be embedded in the lower edge of the lateral lobes of the thyroid or may be found a little distance below in relation to the inferior thyroid veins. They are often very difficult to find, but it is easiest to do so in a perfectly fresh, full-term foetus or young child. Microscopically they consist of solid masses of epithelioid cells with numerous blood-vessels between, while, embedded in their periphery, are often found masses of thymic tissue including the concentric corpuscles of Hassall. They have been regarded as undeveloped portions of thyroid tissue in an embryonic state, but the experiments of Gley (Comptes rendus de la Soc. de Biol. No. 11, 1895) and of W. Edmunds (Proc. Physiol. Soc.—Journ. Phys. vol. xviii., 1895) do not confirm this. They are developed from the entoderm of the third and fourth branchial grooves.

Parathyroids have been found in the orders of Primates, Cheiroptera, Carnivora, Ungulata and Rodentia among the Mammalia, and also in Birds. In the other classes of vertebrates little is known of them. The fullest and most recent account of these bodies is that of D.A. Welsh in Journ. Anat. and Phys. vol. 32, 1898, pp. 292 and 380.

The Thymus Gland

The thymus gland (Gr. θύμος, from a fancied resemblance to the corymbs of the Thyme) is a light pink gland, consisting of two unequal lobes, which lies in the superior and anterior mediastina of the thorax in front of the pericardium and great vessels; it also extends up into the root of the neck to within a short distance of the thyroid gland. It continues to grow until the second year of life, after which it remains stationary until puberty, when it usually degenerates rapidly. The writer has seen it perfectly well developed in a man between 40 and 50, though such cases are rare; probably, however, some patches of its tissue remain all through life. Each lobe is divided into a large number of lobules divided by areolar tissue, and each of these, under the microscope, is seen to consist of a cortical and medullary part. The cortex is composed of lymphoid tissue and resembles the structure of a lymphatic gland (see [Lymphatic System]); it is imperfectly divided into a number of follicles. In the medulla the lymphoid cells are fewer, and nests of epithelial cells are found, called the concentric corpuscles of Hassall. The vascular supply is derived from all the vessels in the neighbourhood, the lymphatics are very large and numerous, but the nerves, which come from the sympathetic and vagus, are few and small. H. Watney (Phil. Trans., 1882) has discovered haemoglobin, and apparently developing red blood corpuscles, in the thymus. (For further details see Gray’s or Quain’s Anatomy.)

Embryology.—The thymus is formed from a diverticulum, on each side, from the entoderm lining the third branchial groove, but the connexion with the pharynx is soon lost. The lymphoid cells and concentric corpuscles are probably the derivatives of the original cells lining the diverticulum.

Comparative Anatomy.—The thymus is always a paired gland. In most fishes it rises from the dorsal part of all five branchial clefts; in Lepidosiren (Dipnoi), from all except the first; in Urodela from 3rd, 4th and 5th, and in Anura from the 2nd only (see T.H. Bryce, “Development of Thymus in Lepidosiren,” Journ. Anat. and Phys. vol. 40, p. 91). In all fishes, including the Dipnoi (mud fish) it is placed dorsally to the gill arches on each side. In the Amphibia it is found close to the articulation of the mandible. In the Reptilia it is situated by the side of the carotid artery; but in young crocodiles it is lobulated and extends all along the neck, as it does in birds, lying close to the side of the oesophagus. In Mammals the Marsupials are remarkable for having a well-developed cervical as well as thoracic thymus (J. Symington, J. Anat. and Phys. vol. 32, p. 278). In some of the lower mammals the gland does not disappear as early as it does in man. The thymus of the calf is popularly known as “the chest sweetbread.”

Carotid Bodies

These are two small bodies situated, one on each side, between the origins of the external and internal carotid arteries. Microscopically they are divided into nodules or cell balls by connective tissue, and these closely resemble the structure of the parathyroids, but are without any thymic tissue. The blood-vessels in their interior are extremely large and numerous. The modern view of their development is that they are part of the sympathetic system, and the reaction of their cells to chromium salts bears this out. (See Kohn, Archiv f. mikr. Anat. lxx., 1907.)

In the Anura there is a rete or network into which the carotid artery breaks up in the position of the carotid body, and this has an important effect on the course of the circulation. It is probable, however, that this structure has nothing to do with the carotid body of Mammalia.

Coccygeal Body

This is a small median body, about the size of a pea, situated in front of the apex of the coccyx and between the insertions of the levatores ani muscles. It resembles the carotid body in its microscopical structure, but is not so vascular. Concentric corpuscles, like those of the thymus, have been recorded in it. It derives its arteries from the middle sacral and its nerves from the sympathetic. Of its embryology and comparative anatomy little is known, though J.W. Thomson Walker has recently shown that numerous, outlying, minute masses of the same structure lie along the course of the middle sacral artery (Archiv f. mikroscop. Anat. Bd. lxiv.). The probability is that, like the carotid body, it is sympathetic in origin. (Quain’s Anatomy gives excellent illustrations of the histology of this as well as of all the other ductless glands.)

For the literature on and further details concerning the foregoing structures the following works should be consulted: Quain’s Anatomy, vol. 1 (1908, London, Longman & Co.); McMurrich’s Development of the Human Body (London, Rebman, 1906); Wiedersheim’s Vergleich. Anat. der Wirbeltiere (Jena, 1898).

(F. G. P.)

DUDERSTADT, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover, situated in a beautiful and fertile valley (formerly called Goldene Mark) watered by the Hahle, and on the railway Wulften-Leinefelde. Pop. (1905) 5327. It is an interesting medieval town with many ancient buildings. Notable are the two Roman Catholic churches, beautiful Gothic edifices of the 14th century, the Protestant church, and the handsome town-hall. Its chief industries are woollen and cotton manufactures, sugar-refining and cigar-making; it has also a trade in singing-birds. Duderstadt was founded by Henry I. (the Fowler) in 929, passed later to the monastery of Quedlinburg, and then to Brunswick. It was a member of the Hanseatic League, and during the Thirty Years’ War became a stronghold of the Imperialists. It was taken by Duke William of Weimar in 1632; in 1761 its walls were dismantled, and, after being alternately Prussian and Hanoverian, it passed finally in 1866 with Hanover to Prussia.

DUDLEY, BARONS AND EARLS OF. The holders of these English titles are descended from John de Sutton (c. 1310-1359) of Dudley castle, Staffordshire, who was summoned to parliament as a baron in 1342. Sutton was the son of another John de Sutton, who had inherited Dudley Castle through his marriage with Margaret, sister and heiress of John de Somery (d. 1321); he was called Lord Dudley, or Lord Sutton of Dudley, the latter being doubtless the correct form. However, his descendants, the Suttons, were often called by the name of Dudley; and from John Dudley of Atherington, Sussex, a younger son of John Sutton, the 5th baron, the earls of Warwick and the earl of Leicester of the Dudley family are descended.

John Sutton or Dudley (c. 1400-1487), the 5th baron, was first summoned to parliament in 1440, having been viceroy of Ireland from 1428 to 1430. He served Henry VI. as a diplomatist and also as a soldier, being taken prisoner at the first battle of St Albans in 1455, but this did not prevent him from enjoying the favour of Edward IV. He died on the 30th of September 1487. He was succeeded as 6th baron by his grandson Edward (c. 1459-1532), and one of his sons, William Dudley, was bishop of Durham from 1476 until his death in 1483. His descendant Edward Sutton or Dudley, the 9th baron (1567-1643), had several illegitimate sons. Among them was Dud Dudley (1599-1684), who in 1665 published Metallum Martis, describing a process of making iron with “pit-coale, sea-coale, &c.” which was put in operation at his father’s ironworks at Pensnet, Worcestershire, of which he was manager. His success aroused much opposition on the part of other ironmasters, and his commercial ventures at Himley, at Askew Bridge and at Bristol ended in loss and disaster. During the Civil War he was a colonel in the army of Charles I.

Dying without lawful male issue in June 1643, the 9th baron was succeeded in the barony by his grand-daughter, Frances (1611-1697); she married Humble Ward (c. 1614-1670), the son of a London goldsmith, who was created Baron Ward of Birmingham in 1644. Their son Edward (1631-1701) succeeded both to the barony of Dudley and to that of Ward, but these were separated when his grandson William died unmarried in May 1740. The barony of Dudley passed to a nephew, Ferdinando Dudley Lea, falling into abeyance on his death in October 1757; that of Ward passed to the heir male, John Ward (d. 1774), a descendant of Humble Ward. In 1763 Ward was created Viscount Dudley, and in April 1823 his grandson, John William Ward (1781-1833), became the 4th viscount.

Educated at Oxford, John William Ward entered parliament in 1802, and except for a few months he remained in the House of Commons until he succeeded his father in the peerage. In 1827 he was minister for foreign affairs under Canning and then under Goderich and under Wellington, resigning office in May 1828. As foreign minister he was only a cipher, but he was a man of considerable learning and had some reputation as a writer and a talker. Dudley took an interest in the foundation of the university of London, and his Letters to the bishop of Llandaff were published by the bishop (Edward Copleston) in 1840 (new ed. 1841). He was created Viscount Ednam and earl of Dudley in 1827, and when he died unmarried on the 6th of March 1833 these titles became extinct. His barony of Ward, however, passed to a kinsman, William Humble Ward (1781-1835), whose son, William (1817-1885), inheriting much of the dead earl’s great wealth, was created Viscount Ednam and earl of Dudley in 1860. The 2nd earl of Dudley in this creation was the latter’s son William Humble (b. 1866), who was lord-lieutenant of Ireland from 1902 to 1906, and in 1908 was appointed governor-general of Australia.

See H.S. Grazebrook in the Herald and Genealogist, vols. ii., v. and vi.; in Notes and Queries, 2nd series, vol. xi.; and in vol. ix. of the publications of the William Salt Society (1888).

DUDLEY, EDMUND (c. 1462-1510), minister of Henry VII. of England, was a son of John Dudley of Atherington, Sussex, and a member of the great baronial family of Sutton or Dudley. After studying at Oxford and at Gray’s Inn, Dudley came under the notice of Henry VII., and is said to have been made a privy councillor at the early age of twenty-three. In 1492 he helped to negotiate the treaty of Etaples with France and soon became prominent in assisting the king to check the lawlessness of the barons, and at the same time to replenish his own exchequer. He and his colleague Sir Richard Empson (q.v.) are called fiscales judices by Polydore Vergil, and owing to their extortions they became very unpopular. Dudley, who was speaker of the House of Commons in 1504, in addition to aiding Henry, amassed a great amount of wealth for himself, and possessed large estates in Sussex, Dorset and Lincolnshire. When Henry VII. died in April 1509, he was thrown into prison by order of Henry VIII. and charged with the crime of constructive treason, being found guilty and attainted. After having made a futile attempt to escape from prison, he was executed on the 17th or 18th of August 1510. Dudley’s nominal crime was that during the last illness of Henry VII. he had ordered his friends to assemble in arms in case the king died, but the real reason for his death was doubtless the unpopularity caused by his avarice. During his imprisonment he sought to gain the favour of Henry VIII. by writing a treatise in support of absolute monarchy called The Tree of Commonwealth. This never reached the king’s hands, and was not published until 1859, when it was printed privately in Manchester. Dudley’s first wife was Anne, widow of Roger Corbet of Morton, Shropshire, by whom he had a daughter, Elizabeth, who married William, 6th Lord Stourton. By his second wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle, he had three sons: John, afterwards duke of Northumberland (q.v.); Andrew (d. 1559), who was made a knight and held various important posts during the reign of Edward VI.; and Jasper.

See Francis Bacon, History of Henry VII., edited by J.R. Lumby (Cambridge, 1881); and J.S. Brewer, The Reign of Henry VIII., edited by J. Gairdner (London, 1884).

DUDLEY, SIR ROBERT (1573-1649), titular duke of Northumberland and earl of Warwick, English explorer, engineer and author, was the son of Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester (q.v.), the favourite of Queen Elizabeth. His mother was Lady Douglas Sheffield, daughter of Thomas, first Baron Howard of Effingham. Leicester, who deserted Lady Douglas Sheffield for Lettice Knollys, widow of the first earl of Essex, denied that they were married. She asserted that they were, at Esher in Surrey, but her marriage with Sir Edward Stafford of Grafton, after her desertion by Leicester, would seem to be a tacit confession that her claim had no foundation. Her son Robert was born in May 1573, was recognized by Leicester, and sent to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1587. He inherited all Leicester’s property under the earl’s will at his death in 1588, and in the following year the property of Ambrose Dudley, earl of Warwick. In 1594 he made a voyage to the West Indies, and in 1596 he took part in the expedition to Cadiz and was knighted. In 1592 he had married a sister of Thomas Cavendish the circumnavigator. On her death he married Alicia Leigh in 1596, by whom he had four daughters. After the death of Elizabeth he endeavoured to secure recognition of his legitimacy, and of his right to inherit the titles of his father and uncle. The proceedings were quashed by the Star Chamber. In 1605 he obtained leave to travel abroad, and went to Italy accompanied by the beautiful Miss Elizabeth Southwell, daughter of Sir Robert Southwell of Woodrising, in the dress of a page. When ordered to return home and to provide for his deserted wife and family, he refused, was outlawed, and his property was confiscated. On the continent he avowed himself a Roman Catholic, married Elizabeth Southwell at Lyons, and entered the service of Cosimo II., grand-duke of Tuscany. In the service of the grand-duke he is said to have done some fighting against the Barbary pirates, and he was undoubtedly employed in draining the marshes behind Leghorn, and in the construction of the port. In 1620 the emperor Ferdinand II. gave him a patent recognizing his claim not only to the earldom of Warwick but to the duchy of Northumberland, which had been held by his grandfather, who was executed by Queen Mary Tudor. In Italy Dudley was known as Duca di Nortombria and Conte di Warwick. He died near Florence on the 6th of September 1649, leaving a large family of sons and daughters. His deserted wife, Alicia, was created duchess of Dudley by Charles I. in 1644, and died in 1670, when the title became extinct. Through a daughter who married the Marquis Paleotti, Dudley was the ancestor of the wife of the first duke of Shrewsbury (of the revolution of 1688), and of her brother who was executed at Tyburn for murder on the 17th of March 1718. Dudley was the author of a pamphlet addressed to King James I., showing how the “impertinences of parliament” could be bridled by military force. But his chief claim to memory is the magnificent Arcano dell mare, published in Italian at Florence in 1645-1646 in three volumes folio. It is a collection of all the naval knowledge of the age, and is particularly remarkable for a scheme for the construction of a navy in five rates which Dudley designed and described. It was reprinted in Florence in two volumes folio in 1661 without the charts of the first edition.

Authorities.—G.L. Craik, Romance of the Peerage (London, 1848-1850), vol. iii.; Sir N.H. Nicolas, Report of Proceedings on the Claim to the Barony of L’Isle (London, 1829); and The Italian Biography of Sir R. Dudley, published anonymously, privately and without date or name of place, but known to have been written by Doctor Vaughan Thomas, vicar of Stoneleigh, who died in 1858.

(D. H.)

DUDLEY, THOMAS (1576-1653), British colonial governor of Massachusetts, was born in Northampton, England, in 1576, a member of the elder branch of the family to the younger branch of which Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, belonged. He was the son of a country gentleman of some means and high standing, was captain of an English company in the French expedition of 1597, serving under Henry of Navarre, and eventually became the steward of the earl of Lincoln’s estates, which he managed with great success for many years. Having been converted to Puritanism, he became a strict advocate of its strictest tenets. About 1627 he associated himself with other Lincolnshire gentlemen who in 1629 entered into an agreement to settle in New England provided they were allowed to take the charter with them. This proposal the general court of the Plymouth Company agreed to, and in April 1630 Dudley sailed to America in the same ship with John Winthrop, the newly appointed governor, Dudley himself at the last moment being chosen deputy-governor in place of John Humphrey (or Humfrey), the earl of Lincoln’s son-in-law, whose departure was delayed. Dudley was for many years the most influential man in the Massachusetts Bay colony, save Winthrop, with whose policy he was more often opposed than in agreement. He was deputy-governor in 1629-1634, in 1637-1640, in 1646-1650 and in 1651-1653, and was governor four times, in 1634, 1640, 1645 and 1650. Soon after his arrival in the colony he settled at Newton (Cambridge), of which he was one of the founders; he was also one of the earliest promoters of the plan for the establishment of Harvard College. Winthrop’s decision to make Boston the capital instead of Newton precipitated the first of the many quarrels between the two, Dudley’s sterner and harsher Puritanism, being in strong contrast to Winthrop’s more tolerant and liberal views. He was an earnest and persistent heresy-hunter—not only the Antinomians, but even such a good Puritan as John Cotton, against whom he brought charges, feeling the weight of his stern and remorseless hand. His position he himself best expressed in the following brief verse found among his papers:

He died at Roxbury, Massachusetts, on the 31st of July 1653.

See Augustine Jones, Life and Work of Thomas Dudley, the Second Governor of Massachusetts (Boston, 1899); and the Life of Mr Thomas Dudley, several times Governor of the Colony of Massachusetts, written as is supposed by Cotton Mather, edited by Charles Deane (Cambridge, 1870). Dudley’s interesting and valuable “Letter to the Countess of Lincoln,” is reprinted in Alexander Young’s Chronicles of the Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay (Boston, 1846), and in the New Hampshire Historical Society Collections, vol. iv. (1834).

His son Joseph Dudley (1647-1720), colonial governor of Massachusetts, was born in Roxbury, Massachusetts, on the 23rd of September 1647. He graduated at Harvard College in 1665, became a member of the general court, and in 1682 was sent by Massachusetts to London to prevent the threatened revocation of her charter by Charles II. There, with an eye to his personal advancement, he secretly advised the king to annul the charter; this was done, and Dudley, by royal appointment, became president of the provisional council. With the advent of the new governor, Sir Edmund Andros, Dudley became a judge of the superior court and censor of the press. Upon the deposition of Andros, Dudley was imprisoned and sent with him to England, but was soon set free. In 1691-1692 he was chief-justice of New York, presiding over the court that condemned Leisler and Milburn. Returning to England in 1693, he was lieutenant-governor of the Isle of Wight and a member of parliament, and in 1702, after a long intrigue, secured from Queen Anne a commission as governor of Massachusetts, serving until 1715. His administration was marked, particularly in the earlier years, by ceaseless conflict with the general court, from which he demanded a regular fixed salary instead of an annual grant. He was active in raising volunteers for the so-called Queen Anne’s War, and in 1707 sent a fruitless expedition against Port Royal. He was accused by the Boston merchants, who petitioned for his removal, of being in league with smugglers and illicit traders, and in 1708 a bitter attack on his administration was published in London, entitled The Deplorable State of New England by reason of a Covetous and Treacherous Governor and Pusillanimous Counsellors. His character may be best summed up in the words of one of his successors, Thomas Hutchinson, that “he had as many virtues as can consist with so great a thirst for honour and power.” He died at Roxbury on the 2nd of April 1720.

Joseph Dudley’s son, Paul Dudley (1675-1751), graduated at Harvard in 1690, studied law at the Temple in London, and became attorney-general of Massachusetts (1702 to 1718). He was associate justice of the superior court of that province from 1718 to 1745, and chief justice from 1745 until his death. He was a member of the Royal Society (London), to whose Transactions he contributed several valuable papers on the natural history of New England, and was the founder of the Dudleian lectures on religion at Harvard.

The best extended account of Joseph Dudley’s administration is in J.G. Palfrey’s History of New England, vol. iv. (Boston, 1875).

DUDLEY, a municipal, county and parliamentary borough and market-town of Worcestershire, England, in a portion of that county enclaved in Staffordshire, 8 m. W.N.W. of Birmingham, and 121 N.W. of London by the London & North Western railway. The Great Western railway also serves the town. Pop. (1891) 45,724; (1901) 48,733. Dudley lies on an elevated ridge, in the midst of the district of the midlands known as the Black Country, which is given up to ironworks and coal mines. The “ten-yard” coal, in the neighbourhood, is the thickest seam worked in England. Limestone is extensively quarried, fire-clay is abundant; and iron-founding, brass-founding, engineering works, glass works and brick works are comprised in the industries. Among the principal buildings are the churches of the five parishes into which the town is divided, the town hall, county court, free libraries, and school of art, grammar school with university and foundation scholarships, technical school, mechanics’ institute, Guest hospital (founded by Joseph Guest, a citizen, in 1868), and a dispensary. In the market-place stands a large domed fountain, erected by the earl of Dudley (1867). There is a geological society with a museum, for the neighbourhood of Dudley is full of geological interest, the Silurian limestone abounding in fossils. To the north of the town are extensive remains of an ancient castle, surrounded by beautiful grounds. The hill on which it stands is of limestone, which by quarrying has been hollowed out in extensive chambers and galleries. The view from the castle is remarkable. The whole district is seen to be set with chimneys, pit-buildings and factories; and at night the glare of furnaces reveals the tireless activity of the Black Country. Dudley and its environs are connected by a tramway system, and water communication is afforded by the Dudley canal with Birmingham and with the river Severn.

Included in the parliamentary borough, but in Staffordshire, and 2½ m. by rail S.W. of Dudley, is Brierley Hill, a market-town on the river Stour and the Stourbridge and Birmingham Canals. Its chief buildings are the modern church of St Michael, standing on a hill, the Roman Catholic church of St Mary, by A.W. Pugin, the town hall and free library. Between this and Dudley lie the great ironworks of Roundoak, and the extensive suburb of Netherton in the enclaved portion of Worcestershire. The industries are similar to those of Dudley. Three miles W. of Dudley is Kingswinford, a mining township, with large brick works, giving name to a parliamentary division of Staffordshire. The parliamentary borough of Dudley returns one member. The town itself is governed by a mayor, 10 aldermen and 30 councillors. Area 3546 acres.

In medieval times the importance of Dudley (Dudelei) depended on the castle, which is mentioned in the Domesday Survey. Before the Conquest Earl Eadwine held the manor, which in 1086 belonged to William FitzAnsculf, from whom it passed, probably by marriage, to Fulk Paynel, afterwards to the Somerys, Suttons and Wards, whose descendants (earls of Dudley) now hold it. The first mention of Dudley as a borough occurs in an inquisition taken after the death of Roger de Somery in 1272. This does not give a clear account of the privileges held by the burgesses, but shows that they had probably been freed from some or all of the services required from them as manorial tenants, in return for a fixed rent. In 1865 Dudley was incorporated. Before that time it was governed by a high and low bailiff appointed every year at the court leet of the manor. Roger de Somery evidently held a market by prescription in Dudley before 1261, in which year he came to terms with the dean of Wolverhampton, who had set up a market in Wolverhampton to the disadvantage of Roger’s market at Dudley. According to the terms of the agreement the dean might continue his market on condition that Roger and his tenants should be free from toll there. Two fairs, on the 21st of September and the 21st of April, were granted in 1684 to Edward Lord Ward, lord of the manor. Dudley was represented in the parliament of 1295, but not again until the privilege was revived by the Reform Act of 1832. Mines of sea-coal in Dudley are mentioned as early as the reign of Edward I., and by the beginning of the 17th century mining had become an important industry.

DUDO, or Dudon (fl. c. 1000), Norman historian was dean of St Quentin, where he was born about 965. Sent in 986 by Albert I. count of Vermandois, on an errand to Richard I., duke of Normandy, he succeeded in his mission, and, having made a very favourable impression at the Norman court, spent some years in that country. During a second stay in Normandy Dudo wrote his history of the Normans, a task which Duke Richard I. had urged him to undertake. Very little else is known about his life, except that he died before 1043. Written between 1015 and 1030, his Historia Normannorum, or Libri III. de moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum, was dedicated to Adalberon, bishop of Laon. Dudo does not appear to have consulted any existing documents for his history, but to have obtained his information from oral tradition, much of it being supplied by Raoul, count of Ivry, a half-brother of Duke Richard I. Consequently the Historia partakes of the nature of a romance, and on this ground has been regarded as untrustworthy by such competent critics as E. Dummler and G. Waitz. Other authorities, however, e.g. J. Lair and J. Steenstrup, while admitting the existence of a legendary element, regard the book as of considerable value for the history of the Normans. Although Dudo was acquainted with Virgil and other Latin writers, his Latin is affected and obscure. The Historia, which is written alternately in prose and in verse of several metres, is divided into four parts, and deals with the history of the Normans from 852 to the death of Duke Richard I. in 996. It glorifies the Normans, and was largely used by William of Jumièges, Wace, Robert of Torigni, William of Poitiers and Hugh of Fleury in compiling their chronicles, and was first published by A. Duchesne in his Historiae Normannorum scriptores antiqui, at Paris in 1619. Another edition is in the Patrologia Latina, tome cxli. of J.P. Migne (Paris, 1844), but the best is perhaps the one edited by J. Lair (Caen, 1865).

See E. Dümmler, “Zur Kritik Dudos von St Quentin” in the Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, Bande vi. and ix. (Göttingen, 1866); G. Waitz, “Über die Quellen zur Geschichte der Begrundung der normannischen Herrschaft in Frankreich,” in the Gottinger gel. Anzeigen (Göttingen, 1866); J.C.H.R. Steenstrup, Normannerne, Band i. (Copenhagen, 1876); J. Lair, Étude critique et historique sur Dudon (Caen, 1865); G. Kortung, Über die Quellen des Roman de Rou (Leipzig, 1867); W. Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, Band i. (Berlin, 1904); and A. Molinier, Les Sources de l’histoire de France, tome ii. (Paris, 1902).

DUDWEILER, a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province, on the Sulzbach, 4 m. by rail N.E. from Saarbrücken. It has extensive coal mines and ironworks and produces fire-proof bricks. Pop. (1905) 16,320.

DUEL (Ital. duello, Lat. duellum—old form of bellum—from duo, two), a prearranged encounter between two persons, with deadly weapons, in accordance with conventional rules, with the object of voiding a personal quarrel or of deciding a point of honour. The first recorded instance of the word occurs in Coryate’s Crudities (1611), but Shakespeare has duello in this sense, and uses “duellist” of Tybalt in Romeo and Juliet. In its earlier meaning of a judicial combat we find the word latinized in the Statute of Wales (Edw. I., Act 12), “Placita de terris in partibus istis non habent terminari per duellum.”

Duels in the modern sense were unknown to the ancient world, and their origin must be sought in the feudal age of Europe. The single combats recorded in Greek and Roman history and legend, of Hector and Achilles, Aeneas and Turnus, the Horatii and Curiatii, were incidents in national wars and have nothing in common with the modern duel. It is, however, noteworthy that in Tacitus (Germania, cap. x.) we find the rudiments of the judicial duel (see [Wager], for the wager of battle). Domestic differences, he tells us, were settled by a legalized form of combat between the disputants, and when a war was impending a captive from the hostile tribe was armed and pitted against a national champion, and the issue of the duel was accepted as an omen. The judicial combat was a Teutonic institution, and it was in fact an appeal from human justice to the God of battles, partly a sanction of the current creed that might is right, that the brave not only will win but deserve to win. It was on these grounds that Gundobald justified, against the complaints of a bishop, the famous edict passed at Lyons (A.D. 501) which established the wager of battle as a recognized form of trial. It is God, he argued, who directs the issue of national wars, and in private quarrels we may trust His providence to favour the juster cause. Thus, as Gibbon comments, the absurd and cruel practice of judicial duels, which had been peculiar to some tribes of Germany, was propagated and established in all the monarchies of Europe from Sicily to the Baltic. Yet in its defence it may be urged that it abolished a worse evil, the compurgation by oath which put a premium on perjury, and the ordeal, or judgment of God, when the cause was decided by blind chance, or more often by priestcraft.

Those who are curious to observe the formalities and legal rules of a judicial combat will find them described at length in the 28th book of Montesquieu’s Esprit des lois. On these regulations he well remarks that, as there are an The judicial combat. infinity of wise things conducted in a very foolish manner, so there are some foolish things conducted in a very wise manner. For our present purpose it is sufficient to observe the development of the idea of personal honour from which the modern duel directly sprang. In the ancient laws of the Swedes we find that if any man shall say to another, “You are not a man equal to other men,” or “You have not the heart of a man,” and the other shall reply, “I am a man as good as you,” they shall meet on the highway, and then follow the regulations for the combat. What is this but the modern challenge? By the law of the Lombards if one man call another arga, the insulted party might defy the other to mortal combat. What is arga but the dummer Junger of the German student? Beaumanoir thus describes a legal process under Louis le Débonnaire:—The appellant begins by a declaration before the judge that the appellee is guilty of a certain crime; if the appellee answers that his accuser lies, the judge then ordains the duel. Is not this the modern point of honour, by which to be given the lie is an insult which can only be wiped out by blood?

From Germany the judicial combat rapidly spread to France, where it flourished greatly from the 10th to the 12th century, the period of customary law. By French kings it was welcomed as a limitation of the judicial powers of their half independent vassals. It was a form of trial open to all freemen and in certain cases, as under Louis VI., the privilege was extended to serfs. Even the church resorted to it not unfrequently to settle disputes concerning church property. Abbots and priors as territorial lords and high justiciaries had their share in the confiscated goods of the defeated combatant, and Pope Nicholas when applied to in 858 pronounced it “a just and legitimate combat.” Yet only three years before the council of Valence had condemned the practice, imposing the severest penance on the victor and refusing the last rites of the church to the vanquished as to a suicide. In 1385 a duel was fought, the result of which was so preposterous that even the most superstitious began to lose faith in the efficacy of such a judgment of God. A certain Jacques Legris was accused by the wife of Jean Carrouge of having introduced himself by night in the guise of her husband whom she was expecting on his return from the Crusades. A duel was ordained by the parlement of Paris, which was fought in the presence of Charles VI. Legris was defeated and hanged on the spot. Not long after, a criminal arrested for some other offence confessed himself to be the author of the outrage. No institution could long survive so open a confutation, and it was annulled by the parlement. Henceforward the duel in France ceases to be an appeal to Heaven, and becomes merely a satisfaction of wounded honour. Under Louis XII. and Francis I. we find the first vestiges of tribunals of honour. The last instance of a duel authorized by the magistrates, and conducted according to the forms of law, was the famous one between François de Vivonne de la Châtaignerie and Guy Chabot de Jarnac. The duel was fought on the 10th of July 1547 in the courtyard of the château of St Germain-en-Laye, in the presence of the king and a large assembly of courtiers. It was memorable in two ways. It enriched the French language with a new phrase; a sly and unforeseen blow, such as that by which de Jarnac worsted La Châtaignerie, has since been called a coup de Jarnac. And Henry, grieved at the death of his favourite, swore a solemn oath that he would never again permit a duel to be fought. This led to the first of the many royal edicts against duelling. By a decree of the council of Trent (cap. xix.) a ban was laid on “the detestable use of duels, an invention of the devil to compass the destruction of souls together with a bloody death of the body.”

In England, it is now generally agreed, the wager of battle did not exist before the time of the Norman Conquest. Some previous examples have been adduced, but on examination they will be seen to belong rather to the class of single combats between the champions of two opposing armies. One such instance is worth quoting as a curious illustration of the superstition of the time. It occurs in a rare tract printed in London, 1610, The Duello, or Single Combat. “Danish irruptions and the bad aspects of Mars having drencht the common mother earth with her sonnes’ blood streames, under the reigne of Edmund, a Saxon monarch, misso in compendium (so worthy Camden expresseth it) bello utriusque gentis fata Edmundo Anglorum et Canuto Danorum regibus commissa fuerunt, qui singulari certamine de summa imperij in hac insula (that is, the Eight in Glostershire) depugnarunt.” By the laws of William the Conqueror the trial by battle was only compulsory when the opposite parties were both Normans, in other cases it was optional. As the two nations were gradually merged into one, this form of trial spread, and until the reign of Henry II. it was the only mode for determining a suit for the recovery of land. The method of procedure is admirably described by Shakespeare in the opening scene in Richard II., where Henry of Bolingbroke, duke of Hereford, challenges Thomas, duke of Norfolk; in the mock-heroic battle between Horner the Armourer and his man Peter in Henry VI.; and by Sir W. Scott in the Fair Maid of Perth, where Henry Gow appears before the king as the champion of Magdalen Proudfute. The judicial duel never took root in England as it did in France. In civil suits it was superseded by the grand assize of Henry II., and in cases of felony by indictment at the prosecution of the crown. One of the latest instances occurred in the reign of Elizabeth, 1571, when the lists were actually prepared and the justices of the common pleas appeared at Tothill Fields as umpires of the combat. Fortunately the petitioner failed to put in an appearance, and was consequently nonsuited (see Spelman, Glossary, s.v. “Campus”). As late as 1817 Lord Ellenborough, in the case of Thornton v. Ashford, pronounced that “the general law of the land is that there shall be a trial by battle in cases of appeal unless the party brings himself within some of the exceptions.” Thornton was accused of murdering Mary Ashford, and claimed his right to challenge the appellant, the brother of the murdered girl, to wager of battle. His suit was allowed, and, the challenge being refused, the accused escaped. Next year the law was abolished (59 Geo. III., c. 46).

In sketching the history of the judicial combat we have traced the parentage of the modern duel. Strip the former of its legality, and divest it of its religious sanction, and the latter remains. We are justified, then, in dating The duel of honour. the commencement of duelling from the abolition of the wager of battle. To pursue its history we must return to France, the country where it first arose, and the soil on which it has most flourished. The causes which made it indigenous to France are sufficiently explained by the condition of society and the national character. As Buckle has pointed out, duelling is a special development of chivalry, and chivalry is one of the In France. phases of the protective spirit which was predominant in France up to the time of the Revolution. Add to this the keen sense of personal honour, the susceptibility and the pugnacity which distinguish the French race. Montaigne, when touching on this subject in his essays, says, “Put three Frenchmen together on the plains of Libya, and they will not be a month in company without scratching one another’s eyes out.” The third chapter of d’Audiguier’s Ancien usage des duels is headed, “Pourquoi les seuls Français se battent en duel.” English literature abounds with allusions to this characteristic of the French nation. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who was ambassador at the court of Louis XIII., says, “There is scarce a Frenchman worth looking on who has not killed his man in a duel.” Ben Jonson, in his Magnetic Lady, makes Compass, the scholar and soldier, thus describe France, “that garden of humanity”:—

Duels were not common before the 16th century. Hallam attributes their prevalence to the barbarous custom of wearing swords as a part of domestic dress, a fashion which was not introduced till the later part of the 15th century. In 1560 the states-general at Orleans supplicated Charles IX. to put a stop to duelling. Hence the famous ordinance of 1566, drawn up by the chancellor de l’Hôpital, which served as the basis of the successive ordinances of the following kings. Under the frivolous and sanguinary reign of Henry III., “who was as eager for excitement as a woman,” the rage for duels spread till it became almost an epidemic. In 1602 the combined remonstrances of the church and the magistrates extorted from the king an edict condemning to death whoever should give or accept a challenge or act as second. But public opinion was revolted by such rigour, and the statue remained a dead letter. A duel forms a fit conclusion to the reign. A hair-brained youth named L’Isle Marivaux swore that he would not survive his beloved king, and threw his cartel into the air. It was at once picked up, and Marivaux soon obtained the death he had courted. Henry IV. began his reign by an edict against duels, but he was known in private to favour them; and, when de Créqui asked leave to fight Don Philip of Savoy, he is reported to have said, “Go, and if I were not a king I would be your second.” Fontenay-Mareuil says, in his Mémoires, that in the eight years between 1601 and 1609, 2000 men of noble birth fell in duels. In 1609 a more effective measure was taken at the instance of Sully by the establishment of a court of honour. The edict decrees that all aggrieved persons shall address themselves to the king, either directly or through the medium of the constables, marshals, &c.; that the king shall decide, whether, if an accommodation could not be effected, permission to fight should be given; that the aggressor, if pronounced in the wrong, shall in any case be suspended from any public office or employment, and be mulcted of one-third of his revenue till he has satisfied the aggrieved party; that any one giving or receiving a challenge shall forfeit all right of reparation and all his offices; that any one who kills his adversary in an unauthorized duel shall suffer death without burial, and his children shall be reduced to villanage; that seconds, if they take part in a duel, shall suffer death, if not, shall be degraded from the profession of arms. This edict has been pronounced by Henri Martin “the wisest decree of the ancient monarchy on a matter which involves so many delicate and profound questions of morals, politics, and religion touching civil rights” (Histoire de France, x. 466).

In the succeeding reign the mania for duels revived. Rostand’s Cyrano is a life-like modern portraiture of French bloods in the first half of the 17th century. De Houssaye tells us that in Paris when friends met the first question was, “Who fought yesterday? who is to fight to-day?” They fought by night and day, by moonlight and by torch-light, in the public streets and squares. A hasty word, a misconceived gesture, a question about the colour of a riband or an embroidered letter, such were the commonest pretexts for a duel. The slighter and more frivolous the dispute, the less were they inclined to submit them to the king for adjudication. Often, like gladiators or prize-fighters, they fought for the pure love of fighting. A misunderstanding is cleared up on the ground. “N’importe,” cry the principals, “puisque nous sommes ici, battons-nous.” Seconds, as Montaigne tells us, are no longer witnesses, but must take part themselves unless they would be thought wanting in affection or courage; and he goes on to complain that men are no longer contented with a single second, “c’était anciennement des duels, ce sont à cette heure rencontres et batailles.” There is no more striking instance of Richelieu’s firmness and power as a statesman than his conduct in the matter of duelling. In his Testament politique he has assigned his reasons for disapproving it as a statesman and ecclesiastic. But this disapproval was turned to active detestation by a private cause. His elder brother, the head of the house, had fallen in a duel stabbed to the heart by an enemy of the cardinal. Already four edicts had been published under Louis XIII. with little or no effect, when in 1626 there was published a new edict condemning to death any one who had killed his adversary in a duel, or had been found guilty of sending a challenge a second time. Banishment and partial confiscation of goods were awarded for lesser offences. But this edict differed from preceding ones not so much in its severity as in the fact that it was the first which was actually enforced. The cardinal began by imposing the penalties of banishment and fines, but, these proving ineffectual to stay the evil, he determined to make a terrible example. To quote his own words to the king, “Il s’agit de couper la gorge aux duels ou aux édits de votre Majesté.” The count de Boutteville, a renommist who had already been engaged in twenty-one affairs of honour, determined out of pure bravado to fight a twenty-second time. The duel took place at midday on the Place Royale. Boutteville was arrested with his second, the count de Chapelles; they were tried by the parlement of Paris, condemned and, in spite of all the influence of the powerful house of Montmorenci, of which de Boutteville was a branch, they were both beheaded on the 21st of June 1627. For a short time the ardour of duellists was cooled. But the lesson soon lost its effect. Only five years later we read in the Mercure de France that two gentlemen who had killed one another in a duel were, by the cardinal’s orders, hanged on a gallows, stripped and with their heads downwards, in the sight of all the people. This was a move in the right direction, since, for fashionable vices, ridicule and ignominy is a more drastic remedy than death. It was on this principle that Caraccioli, prince of Melfi, when viceroy of Piedmont, finding that his officers were being decimated by duelling, proclaimed that all duels should be fought on the parapet of the Ponte Vecchio, and if one of the combatants chanced to fall into the river he should on no account be pulled out.

Under the long reign of Louis XIV. many celebrated duels took place, of which the most remarkable were that between the duke of Guise and Count Coligny, the last fought on the Place Royale, and that between the dukes of Beaufort and Nemours, each attended by four friends. Of the ten combatants, Nemours and two others were killed on the spot, and none escaped without some wound. No less than eleven edicts against duelling were issued under le Grand Monarque. That of 1643 established a supreme court of honour composed of the marshals of France; but the most famous was that of 1679, which confirmed the enactments of his predecessors, Henry IV. and Louis XII. At the same time a solemn agreement was entered into by the principal nobility that they would never engage in a duel on any pretence whatever. A medal was struck to commemorate the occasion, and the firmness of the king, in refusing pardon to all offenders, contributed more to restrain this scourge of society than all the efforts of his predecessors.

The subsequent history of duelling in France may be more shortly treated. In the preamble to the edict of 1704 Louis XIV. records his satisfaction at seeing under his reign an almost entire cessation of those fatal combats which by the inveterate force of custom had so long prevailed. Addison (Spectator, 99) notes it as one of the most glorious exploits of his reign to have banished the false point of honour. Under the regency of Louis XV. there was a brief revival. The last legislative act for the suppression of duels was passed on the 12th of April 1723. Then came the Revolution, which in abolishing the ancien régime fondly trusted that with it would go the duel, one of the privileges and abuses of an aristocratic society. Dupleix, in his Military Law concerning the Duel (1611), premises that these have no application to lawyers, merchants, financiers or justices. This explains why in the legislation of the National Assembly there is no mention of duels. Camille Desmoulins when challenged shrugged his shoulders and replied to the charge of cowardice that he would prove his courage on other fields than the Bois de Boulogne. The two great Frenchmen whose writings preluded the French Revolution both set their faces against it. Voltaire had indeed, as a young man, in obedience to the dictates of society, once sought satisfaction from a nobleman for a brutal insult, and had reflected on his temerity in the solitude of the Bastille.[1] Henceforward he inveighed against the practice, not only for its absurdity, but also for its aristocratic exclusiveness. Rousseau had said of duelling, “It is not an institution of honour, but a horrible and barbarous custom, which a courageous man despises and a good man abhors.” Napoleon was a sworn foe to it. “Bon duelliste mauvais soldat” is one of his best known sayings; and, when the king of Sweden sent him a challenge, he replied that he would order a fencing-master to attend him as plenipotentiary. After the battle of Waterloo duels such as Lever loves to depict were frequent between disbanded French officers and those of the allies in occupation. The restoration of the Bourbons brought with it a fresh crop of duels. Since then duels have been frequent in France—more frequent, however, in novels than in real life—fought mainly between politicians and journalists, and with rare exceptions bloodless affairs. If fought with pistols, the distance and the weapons chosen render a hit improbable; and, if fought with rapiers, honour is generally satisfied with the first blood drawn. Among Frenchmen famous in politics or letters who have “gone out” may be mentioned Armand Carrel, who fell in an encounter with Émile Girardin; Thiers, who thus atoned for a youthful indiscretion; the elder Dumas; Lamartine; Ste Beuve, who to show at once his sangfroid and his sense of humour, fought under an umbrella; Ledru Rollin; Edmond About; Clément Thomas; Veuillot, the representative of the church militant; Rochefort; and Boulanger, the Bonapartist fanfaron, whose discomfiture in a duel with Floquet resulted in a notable loss of popular respect.

Duelling did not begin in England till some hundred years after it had arisen in France. There is no instance of a private duel fought in England before the 16th century, and they are rare before the reign of James I. A very In England. fair notion of the comparative popularity of duelling, and of the feeling with which it was regarded at various periods, might be gathered by examining the part it plays in the novels and lighter literature of the times. The earliest duels we remember in fiction are that in the Monastery between Sir Piercie Shafton and Halbert Glendinning, and that in Kenilworth between Tressilian and Varney. (That in Anne of Geierstein either is an anachronism or must reckon as a wager by battle.) Under James I. we have the encounter between Nigel and Lord Dalgarno. The greater evil of war, as we observed in French history, expels the lesser, and the literature of the Commonwealth is in this respect a blank. With the Restoration there came a reaction against Puritan morality, and a return to the gallantry and loose manners of French society, which is best represented by the theatre of the day. The drama of the Restoration abounds in duels. Passing on to the reign of Queen Anne, we find the subject frequently discussed in the Tatler and the Spectator, and Addison points in his happiest way the moral to a contemporary duel between Mr Thornhill and Sir Cholmeley Dering. “I come not,” says Spinomont to King Pharamond, “I come not to implore your pardon, I come to relate my sorrow, a sorrow too great for human life to support. Know that this morning I have killed in a duel the man whom of all men living I love best.” No reader of Esmond can forget Thackeray’s description of the doubly fatal duel between the duke of Hamilton and Lord Mohun, which is historical, or the no less life-like though fictitious duel between Lord Mohun and Lord Castlewood. The duel between the two brothers in Stevenson’s Master of Ballantrae is one of the best conceived in fiction. Throughout the reigns of the Georges they are frequent. Richardson expresses his opinion on the subject in six voluminous letters to the Literary Repositor. Sheridan, like Farquhar in a previous generation, not only dramatized a duel, but fought two himself. Byron thus commemorates the bloodless duel between Tom Moore and Lord Jeffrey:—

There are no duels in Miss Austen’s novels, but in those of Miss Edgeworth, her contemporary, there are three or four. As we approach the 19th century they become rarer in fiction. Thackeray’s novels, indeed, abound in duels. “His royal highness the late lamented commander-in-chief” had the greatest respect for Major Macmurdo, as a man who had conducted scores of affairs for his acquaintance with the greatest prudence and skill; and Rawdon Crawley’s duelling pistols, “the same which I shot Captain Marker,” have become a household word. Dickens, on the other hand, who depicts contemporary English life, and mostly in the middle classes, in all his numerous works has only three; and George Eliot never once refers to a duel. Tennyson, using a poet’s privilege, laid the scene of a duel in the year of the Crimean War, but he echoes the spirit of the times when he stigmatizes “the Christless code that must have life for a blow.” Browning, who delights in cases of conscience, has given admirably the double moral aspect of the duel in his two lyrics entitled “Before” and “After.”

To pass from fiction to fact we will select the most memorable English duels of the last century and a half. Lord Byron killed Mr Chaworth in 1765; Charles James Fox and Mr Adams fought in 1779; duke of York and Colonel Lennox, 1789; William Pitt and George Tierney, 1796; George Canning and Lord Castlereagh, 1809; Mr Christie killed John Scott, editor of the London Magazine, 1821; duke of Wellington and earl of Winchelsea, 1829; Mr Roebuck and Mr Black, editor of Morning Chronicle, 1835; Lord Alvanley and a son of Daniel O’Connell in the same year; Earl Cardigan wounded Captain Tuckett, was tried by his peers, and acquitted on a legal quibble, 1840.

The year 1808 is memorable in the annals of duelling in England. Major Campbell was sentenced to death and executed for killing Captain Boyd in a duel. In this case it is true that there was a suspicion of foul play; but in the case of Lieutenant Blundell, who was killed in a duel in 1813, though all had been conducted with perfect fairness, the surviving principal and the seconds were all convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and, although the royal pardon was obtained, they were all cashiered. The next important date is the year 1843, when public attention was painfully called to the subject by a duel in which Colonel Fawcett was shot by his brother-in-law, Lieutenant Monro. The survivor, whose career was thereby blasted, had, it was well known, gone out most reluctantly, in obedience to the then prevailing military code. A full account of the steps taken by the prince consort, and of the correspondence which passed between him and the duke of Wellington, will be found in the Life of the Prince by Sir Theodore Martin. The duke, unfortunately, was not an unprejudiced counsellor. Not only had he been out himself, but, in writing to Lord Londonderry on the occasion of the duel between the marquess and Ensign Battier in 1824, he had gone so far as to state that he considered the probability of the Hussars having to fight a duel or two a matter of no consequence. In the previous year there had been formed in London the association for the suppression of duelling. It included leading members of both houses of parliament and distinguished officers of both services. The first report, issued in 1844, gives a memorial of the association presented to Queen Victoria through Sir James Graham, and in a debate in the House of Commons (15th of March 1844) Sir H. Hardinge, the secretary of war, announced to the House that Her Majesty had expressed herself desirous of devising some expedient by which the barbarous practice of duelling should be as much as possible discouraged. In the same debate Mr Turner reckoned the number of duels fought during the reign of George III. at 172, of which 91 had been attended with fatal results; yet in only two of these cases had the punishment of death been inflicted. But though the proposal of the prince consort to establish courts of honour met with no favour, yet it led to an important amendment of the articles of war (April 1844). The 98th article ordains that “every person who shall fight or promote a duel, or take any steps thereto, or who shall not do his best to prevent duel, shall, if an officer, be cashiered, or suffer such other penalty as a general court-martial may award.” These articles, with a few verbal changes, were incorporated in the consolidated Army Act of 1879 (section 38), which is still in force.

In the German army duels are still authorized by the military code as a last resort in grave cases. A German officer who is involved in a difficulty with another is bound to notify the circumstance to a council of honour at the In Germany. latest as soon as he has either given or received a challenge. A council of honour consists of three officers of different ranks and is instructed, if possible, to bring about a reconciliation. If unsuccessful it must see that the conditions of the duel are not out of proportion to the gravity of the quarrel. Public opinion was greatly roused by a tragic duel fought by two officers of the reserve in 1896; and the German emperor in a cabinet order of 1897, confirmed in 1901, enforced the regulation of the military court of honour, and gave warning that any infringement would be visited with the full penalties of the law. It is, notwithstanding, still the fact that a German officer who is not prepared to accept a challenge and fight, if the opinion of his regiment demands it, must leave the service. The German penal code (Reichsstrafgesetzbuch, pars. 101-110) only punishes a duel when it is fought with lethal weapons; and much controversy has raged round the question of the Mensuren or students’ duels, which, as being conducted with sharpened rapiers, have, despite the precautions taken, in the way of bandaging the vital parts of the body which a cut would reach, to reduce the risk of a fatal issue to a minimum, been declared by the Supreme Court of the Empire to fall under the head of duels, and as such to be punishable.

The Mensuren (German students’ duels) above referred to are frequently misunderstood. They bear little resemblance, save in form, to the duel à outrance, and should rather be considered in the light of athletic games, in which the overflow of high animal spirits in young Germany finds its outlet. These combats are indulged in principally by picked representatives of the “corps” (recognized clubs), and according to the position and value of the Schmisse (cuts which have landed) points are awarded to either side. Formerly these so-called duels could be openly indulged in at most universities without let or hindrance. Gradually, however, the academic authorities took cognizance of the illegality of the practice, and in many cases inflicted punishment for the offence. Nowadays, owing to the decision of the supreme court reserving to the common law tribunals the power to deal with such cases, the governing bodies at the universities have only a disciplinary control, which is exercised at the various seats of learning in various degrees: in some the practice is silently tolerated, or at most visited by reprimand; in others, again, by relegation or carcer—with the result that the students of one university frequently visit another, in order to be able to fight out their battles under less rigorous surveillance.

Any formal discussion of the morality of duelling is, in England at least, happily superfluous. No fashionable vice has been so unanimously condemned both by moralists and divines, and in tracing its history we are reminded Modern views. of the words of Tacitus, “in civitate nostra et vetabitur semper et retinebitur.” Some, however, of the problems, moral and social, which it suggests may be shortly noticed. That duelling flourished so long in England the law is, perhaps, as much to blame as society. It was doubtless from the fact that duels were at first a form of legal procedure that English law has refused to take cognizance of private duels. A duel in the eye of the law differs nothing from an ordinary murder. The greatest English legal authorities, from the time of Elizabeth downwards, such as Coke, Bacon and Hale, have all distinctly affirmed this interpretation of the law. But here as elsewhere the severity of the penalty defeated its own object. The public conscience revolted against a Draconian code which made no distinction between wilful murder and a deadly combat wherein each party consented to his own death or submitted to the risk of it. No jury could be found to convict when conviction involved in the same penalty a Fox or a Pitt and a Turpin or a Brownrigg. Such, however, was the conservatism of English publicists that Bentham was the first to point out clearly this defect of the law, and propose a remedy. In his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, published in 1789, Bentham discusses the subject with his usual boldness and logical precision. In his exposition of the absurdity of duelling considered as a branch of penal justice, and its inefficiency as a punishment, he only restates in a clearer form the arguments of Paley. So far there is nothing novel in his treatment of the subject. But he soon parts company with the Christian moralist, and proceeds to show that duelling does, however rudely and imperfectly, correct and repress a real social evil. “It entirely effaces a blot which an insult imprints upon the honour. Vulgar moralists, by condemning public opinion upon this point, only confirm the fact.” He then points out the true remedy for the evil. It is to extend the same legal protection to offences against honour as to offences against the person. The legal satisfactions which he suggests are some of them extremely grotesque. Thus for an insult to a woman, the man is to be dressed in a woman’s clothes, and the retort to be inflicted by the hand of a woman. But the principle indicated is a sound one, that in offences against honour the punishment must be analogous to the injury. Doubtless, if Bentham were now alive, he would allow that the necessity for such a scheme of legislation had in a great measure passed away. That duels have since become extinct is no doubt principally owing to social changes, but it may be in part ascribed to improvements in legal remedies in the sense which Bentham indicated. A notable instance is Lord Campbell’s Act of 1843, by which, in the case of a newspaper libel, a public apology coupled with a pecuniary payment is allowed to bar a plea. In the Indian Code there are special enactments concerning duelling, which is punishable not as murder but as homicide.

Suggestions have from time to time been made for the establishment of courts of honour, but the need of such tribunals is doubtful, while the objections to them are obvious. The present tendency of political philosophy is to contract rather than extend the province of law, and any interference with social life is justly resented. Real offences against reputation are sufficiently punished, and the rule of the lawyers, that mere scurrility or opprobrious words, which neither of themselves import nor are attended with any hurtful effects, are not punishable, seems on the whole a wise one. What in a higher rank is looked upon as a gross insult may in a lower rank be regarded as a mere pleasantry or a harmless joke. Among the lower orders offences against honour can hardly be said to exist; the learned professions have each its own tribunal to which its members are amenable; and the highest ranks of society, however imperfect their standard of morality may be, are perfectly competent to enforce that standard by means of social penalties without resorting either to trial by law or trial by battle.

The duel, which in a barbarous age may be excused as “a sort of wild justice,” was condemned by Bacon as “a direct affront of law and tending to the dissolution of magistracy.” It survived in more civilized times as a class distinction and as an ultimate court of appeal to punish violations of the social code. In a democratic age and under a settled government it is doomed to extinction. The military duels of the European continent, and the so-called American duel, where the lot decides which of the two parties shall end his life, are singular survivals. For real offences against reputation law will provide a sufficient remedy The learned professions will have each its own tribunal to which its members are amenable. Social stigma is at once a surer and a juster defence against conduct unworthy of a gentleman. Yet the duel dies hard, and even to-day it is approved or palliated by some notable publicists and professors in France and Germany. M.H. Marion (La Grande Encyclopédie), in an article strongly condemnatory of duels, still holds that the wrongdoer is bound to accept a challenge, though he may not take the offensive, and further allows that obligatory duels may be the only way of evoking a sense of honour and of maintaining discipline in the army. Dr Paulsen goes much further, and not only defends the duels of university students (Mensuren) as an encouragement of physical exercise, a proof of courage and a protest of worth against wealth, but maintains generally that the duel should be retained as an expedient in those exceptional cases when a man cannot bring himself to drag before a law court the outrage done to his personal honour. But in such cases Dr Paulsen would have the courts hold the injured person scathless, whether he be challenger or challenged, and visit the aggressor with condign punishment.

Bibliography.—Castillo, Tractatus de duello (Turin, 1525); J.P. Pigna, Il Duello (1554); Muzio Girolamo, Traité du duel (Venice, 1553): Boyssat, Recherches sur les duels (Lyons, 1610); J. Savaron, Traité contre les duels (Paris, 1610); Brantôme, Mémoire sur les duels rodomontades; F. Bacon, Charge concerning Duels, &c. (1614); d’Audiguier, Le Vray et ancien usage des duels (Paris, 1617); His Majesties Edict and severe Censure against private combats (London, 1618); Cockburn, History of Duels (London, 1720); Brillat Savarin, Essai sur le duel (1819); Châteauvillard, Essai sur le duel (1836); Colombey, Histoire anecdotique du duel (Paris); Fourgeroux de Champigneules, Histoire des duels anciens et modernes (2 vols., Paris, 1835-1837); Millingen, History of Duelling (London, 1841); L. Sabine, Notes on Duels (Boston, 1855); Steinmetz, Romance of Duelling (London, 1868). See also Eugène Cauchy, Du duel, &c. (1846), a learned and philosophic treatise by a French lawyer; G. Letainturier-Fradin, Le Duel à travers les âges (Paris, 1892); Mackay, History of Popular Delusions, Duels and Ordeals; and for a valuable list of authorities, Buckle, History of Civilization in England, ii. 137, note 71. For judicial combats see Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xxxviii. For courts of honour see Armed Strength of the German Empire (1876). For Mensur, see Paulsen, The German Universities (1906), ch. vi.

(F. S.)

[1] Voltaire met the chevalier Rohan-Chabot at the house of the Marquis of Sully. The chevalier, offended by Voltaire’s free speech, insolently asked the marquis, “Who is that young man?” “One,” replied Voltaire, “who if he does not parade a great name, honours that he bears.” The chevalier said nothing at the time, but, seizing his opportunity, inveigled Voltaire into his coach, and had him beaten by six of his footmen. Voltaire set to work to learn fencing, and then sought the chevalier in the theatre, and publicly challenged him. A bon-mot at the chevalier’s expense was the only satisfaction that the philosopher could obtain. “Monsieur, si quelque affaire d’intérêt ne vous a point fait oublier l’outrage dont j’ai à me plaindre, j’espère que vous m’en rendrez raison.” The chevalier was said to employ his capital in petty usury.

DUENNA (Span. dueña, a married lady or mistress, Lat. domina), specifically the chief lady-in-waiting upon the queen of Spain. The word is more widely applied, however, to an elderly lady in Spanish and Portuguese households (holding a position midway between a governess and companion) appointed to take charge of the young girls of the family; and “duenna” is thus used in English as a synonym for chaperon (q.v.).

DUET (an adaptation of the Ital. duetto, from Lat. duo, two), a term in music for a composition for two performers, both either vocal or instrumental. The term is not properly applied to a composition for one voice and one instrument, the latter being regarded as an accompaniment, though in the modern evolution of this latter form of composition it often has the same character. Both parts must be of equal importance; if one is subordinated to the other it becomes an accompaniment and the work ceases to be a duet. Instrumental duets are written either for two different instruments, such as Mozart’s duets for violin and piano, or for two similar instruments. Duets written for the pianoforte are either for two performers on two separate instruments or for two performers on the same instrument, when they are termed “duets à quatre mains.”

DUFAURE, JULES ARMAND STANISLAS (1798-1881), French statesman, was born at Saujon (Charente-Inférieure) on the 4th of December 1798. He became an advocate at Bordeaux, where he won a great reputation by his oratorical gifts, but soon abandoned law for politics, and in 1834 was elected deputy. In 1839 he became minister of public works in the Soult ministry, and succeeded in freeing railway construction in France from the obstacles which till then had hampered it. Losing office in 1840, Dufaure became one of the leaders of the Opposition, and on the outbreak of the revolution of 1848 he frankly accepted the Republic, and joined the party of moderate republicans. On October 13th he became minister of the interior under G. Cavaignac, but retired on the latter’s defeat in the presidential election. During the Second Empire Dufaure abstained from public life, and practised at the Paris bar with such success that he was elected bâtonnier in 1862. In 1863 he succeeded to Pasquier’s seat in the French Academy. In 1871 he became a member of the Assembly, and it was on his motion that Thiers was elected President of the Republic. Dufaure became the minister of justice as chief of the party of the “left-centre,” and his tenure of office was distinguished by the passage of the jury-law. In 1873 he fell with Thiers, but in 1875 resumed his former post under L.J. Buffet, whom he succeeded on the 9th of March 1876 as president of the council. In the same year he was elected a life senator. On December the 12th he withdrew from the ministry owing to the attacks of the republicans of the left in the chamber and of the conservatives in the senate. After the check which the conservatives received on the 16th of May he returned to power on the 24th of December 1877. Early in 1879 Dufaure took part in compelling the resignation of Marshal MacMahon, but immediately afterwards (1st February), worn out by opposition, he himself retired. He died in Paris on the 28th of June 1881.

See G. Picot, M. Dufaure, sa vie et ses discours (Paris, 1883).

DUFF, ALEXANDER (1806-1878), Scottish missionary in India, was born on the 26th of April 1806, at Auchnahyle in the parish of Moulin, Perthshire. At St Andrews University he came under the influence of Dr Chalmers. He then accepted an offer made by the foreign mission committee of the general assembly to become their first missionary to India. He was ordained in August 1829, and started at once for India, but was twice shipwrecked before he reached Calcutta in May 1830, and lost all his books and other property. Making Calcutta the base of his operations, he at once identified himself with a policy which had far-reaching results. Up to this time Protestant missions in India had been successful only in reaching low-caste and outcaste peoples, particularly in Tinevelly and south Travancore. The Hindu and Mahommedan communities had been practically untouched. Duff saw that, to reach these communities, educational must take the place of evangelizing methods, and he devised the policy of an educational mission. The success of his work had the effect (1) of altering the policy of the government of India in matters of education, (2) of securing the recognition of education as a missionary agency by Christian churches at home, and (3) of securing entrance for Christian ideas into the minds of high-caste Hindus. He first opened an English school in which the Bible was the centre of the school work, and along with it all kinds of secular knowledge were taught from the rudiments upwards to a university standard. The English language was used on the ground that it was destined to be the great instrument of higher education in India, and also as giving the Hindu the key of Western knowledge. The school soon began to expand into a missionary college, and a government minute was adopted on the 7th of March 1835, to the effect that in higher education the object of the British government should be the promotion of European science and literature among the natives of India, and that all funds appropriated for purposes of education would be best employed on English education alone. Duff wrote a pamphlet on the question, entitled “A New Era of the English Language and Literature in India.” He returned home in 1834 broken in health, but succeeded in securing the approval of his church for his educational plans, and also in arousing much interest in the work of foreign missions.

In 1840 he returned to India. In the previous year the earl of Auckland, governor-general, had yielded to the “Orientalists” who opposed Duff, and adopted a policy which was a compromise between the two. At the Disruption of 1843 Duff sided with the Free Church, gave up the college buildings, with all their effects, and with unabated courage set to work to provide a new institution. He had the support of Sir James Outram and Sir Henry Lawrence, and the encouragement of seeing a new band of converts, including several young men of high caste. In 1844 Viscount Hardinge opened government appointments to all who had studied in institutions similar to Duff’s foundation. In the same year Duff took part in founding the Calcutta Review, of which from 1845 to 1849 he was editor. In 1849 he returned home. He was moderator of the Free Church assembly in 1851. He gave evidence before various Indian committees of parliament on matters of education. This led to an important despatch by Viscount Halifax, president of the board of control, to the marquess of Dalhousie, the governor-general, authorizing an educational advance in primary and secondary schools, the provision of technical and scientific teaching, and the establishment of schools for girls.

In 1854 Duff visited the United States, where what is now New York University gave him the degree of LL.D.; he was already D.D. of Aberdeen. In 1856 he returned to India, where the mutiny soon broke out; his descriptive letters were collected in a volume entitled The Indian Mutiny, its Causes and Results (1858). Duff gave much thought and time to the university of Calcutta, which owes its examination system and the prominence given to physical sciences to his influence. In 1863 Sir Charles Trevelyan offered him the post of vice-chancellor of the University, but his health compelled him to leave India. As a memorial of his work the Duff Hall was erected in the centre of the educational buildings of Calcutta; and a fund of £11,000 was raised for his disposal, the capital of which was afterwards to be used for invalided missionaries of his own church. In 1864 Duff visited South Africa, and on his return became convener of the foreign missions committee of the Free Church. He raised £10,000 to endow a missionary chair at New College, Edinburgh, and himself became first professor. Among other missionary labours of his later years, he helped the Free Church mission on Lake Nyassa, travelled to Syria to inspect a mission at Lebanon, and assisted Lady Aberdeen and Lord Polwarth to establish the Gordon Memorial Mission in Natal. In 1873 the Free Church was threatened with a schism owing to negotiations for union with the United Presbyterian Church. Duff was called to the chair, and guided the church happily through this crisis. He also took part in forming the alliance of Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian system. He died on the 12th of February 1878. By his will he devoted his personal property to found a lectureship on foreign missions on the model of the Bampton Lectures.

See his Life, by George Smith (2 vols.).

(D. Mn.)

DUFFERIN AND AVA, FREDERICK TEMPLE HAMILTON-TEMPLE-BLACKWOOD, 1st Marquess of (1826-1902), British diplomatist, son of Price Blackwood, 4th Baron Dufferin, was born at Florence, Italy, on the 21st of June 1826. The Irish Blackwoods were of old Scottish stock,[1] tracing their descent back to the 14th century. John Blackwood of Bangor (1591-1663), the ancestor of the Irish line, made a fortune and acquired landed property in county Down, and his great-grandson Robert was created a baronet in 1763. Sir Robert’s son, Sir John, married the heiress of the Hamiltons, earls of Clanbrassil and viscounts of Clandeboye (“clan of yellow Hugh”), and thus brought into the family a large property in the borough of Killyleagh and barony of Dufferin, county Down. Sir John Blackwood (d. 1799) declined a peerage, and so did his heir James at the time of the Union, but the Irish title of Baroness Dufferin was conferred (1800) on Sir John’s widow, and James (d. 1836) succeeded as second baron in 1808. His brother Hans (d. 1839) became third baron, and by his marriage with Miss Temple (a descendant of the Temples of Stowe) was the father of Price Blackwood, 4th baron. Among other distinguished members of the family was Admiral Sir Henry Blackwood, Bart. (1770-1832)—a brother of James and Hans—one of Nelson’s captains, who commanded the “Euryalus” at Trafalgar. Price Blackwood, too, was in the Navy; his marriage in 1825 with Helen Selina Sheridan, a daughter of Thomas Sheridan, and granddaughter of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, the dramatist and politician, was against his parents’ wishes, but his young wife’s talents and beauty soon won them over.

Frederick went to Eton (1839-1843) and Christ Church, Oxford (1845-1847), where he took a pass school and was President of the Union. His father died in 1841, and the influence of his mother—one of three unusually accomplished sisters, the other two being the duchess of Somerset and Mrs Norton (q.v.)—was very marked on his mental development; she lived till 1867 and is commemorated by the “Helen’s Tower” erected by her son in her honour at Clandeboye (the Irish seat of the Blackwoods) in 1861, and adorned with epigraphical verses written by Tennyson, Browning and others. On leaving Oxford Lord Dufferin busied himself for some little while with the management of his Irish estates. In 1846-1848 he was active in relieving the distress in Ireland due to the famine, and he was always generous and liberal in his relations with his tenants. In 1855 he already advocated compensation for disturbance and for improvements; but while supporting reasonable reform, he demanded justice for the landowners. In later years (1868-1881) he wrote much, in opposition to J.S. Mill, on behalf of Irish landlordism, and, when Gladstone adopted Home Rule, Lord Dufferin, who had been attached throughout his career to the Liberal party, regarded the new policy as fatal both to Ireland and to the United Kingdom, though, being then an ambassador, he took no public part in opposing it.

Starting with every personal and social advantage, Lord Dufferin quickly became a favourite both at Court and in London society; and in 1849 he was made a lord-in-waiting. In political life he followed Lord John Russell, and in 1850 was further attached to the party by being created a peer of the United Kingdom as Baron Clandeboye. In 1855 Lord John Russell took him as attaché on his special mission to the Vienna Conference. Meanwhile Lord Dufferin was enlarging his experience by foreign travel, and in 1856 he went on a yachting-tour to Iceland, which he described with much humour and graphic power in his successful book, Letters from High Latitudes; this volume made his reputation as a writer, though his only other purely literary publication was his memorial edition (1894) of his mother’s Poems and Verses. In 1860 Lord John Russell sent him as British representative on a joint commission of the powers appointed to inquire into the affairs of the Lebanon (Syria), where the massacres of Christian Maronites by the Mussulman Druses had resulted in the landing of a French force and the possibility of a French occupation. Lord Dufferin was associated with French, Russian, Prussian and Turkish colleagues, and his difficult diplomatic position was made none the less delicate by his conscientious endeavour to be just to all parties. Even if he had not satisfied himself that the Mahommedans were by no means wholly to blame, the question of punishment was in any case complicated by the problem of future administration. His own proposal to put the whole Syrian province under a responsible governor, appointed by the sultan for a term of years, with unfettered jurisdiction, was rejected; but at last it was agreed to place a Christian governor, subordinate to the Porte, over the Lebanon district, and to set up local administrative councils. In May 1861 the French forces departed, and Lord Dufferin was thanked for his services by the government.

In 1862 he married Hariot, daughter of Captain A. Rowan Hamilton, of Killyleagh Castle, Down. He held successively the posts of under-secretary for India (1864-1866) and under-secretary for war (1866) in Lord Palmerston’s and Earl Russell’s ministries; and he was chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, outside the cabinet, under Mr Gladstone (1868-1872). In 1871 he was created earl of Dufferin.

In 1872 he was appointed governor-general of Canada. There his tact and personal charm and genial hospitality were invaluable. He had already become known as a powerful and graceful orator, and a man of culture and political distinction; and his abilities were brilliantly displayed in dealing with the problems of the newly united provinces of the Canadian Dominion. At a time when a weak or unattractive governor-general might easily have damaged the imperial connexion, he admittedly strengthened and consolidated it. Lord Dufferin left Canada in 1878, and in 1879, rather to the annoyance of his old party leader, he accepted from the conservative prime minister, Lord Beaconsfield, the appointment of ambassador to Russia. At St Petersburg he did useful diplomatic work for a couple of years, and then, in 1881, was transferred to Constantinople as ambassador to Turkey. He was soon involved in the negotiations connected with the situation in Egypt caused by Arabi’s revolt and the intervention of Great Britain. It was Lord Dufferin’s task to arrange matters at Constantinople, so that no international friction should be created by any inconvenient assertion by the sultan of his position as suzerain, while it was also necessary to avoid offending either the sultan or the other powers by any appearance of ignoring their rights. He was considerably helped by Turkish ineptitude, and by the accomplished fact of British military successes in Egypt, but his own diplomacy was responsible for securing the necessary freedom of action for the British government.

From October 1882 to May 1883 he was himself in Egypt as British commissioner to report on a scheme of reorganization; and his recommendations—drawn up in a somewhat elaborate State paper—formed the basis of the subsequent reforms. In 1884 he was appointed viceroy of India, succeeding Lord Ripon, whose zeal on behalf of the natives had created a good deal of antagonism among the officials and the Anglo-Indian community. Lord Dufferin, though agreeing in the main with Lord Ripon’s policy, was excellently fitted for the task of restoring confidence without producing any undesirable reaction, and in domestic affairs his viceroyalty was a period of substantial progress, in the reform of the evils of land tenure and in other directions. He was responsible also for initiating stable relations with Afghanistan, and settling the crisis with Russia arising out of the Panjdeh incident (1885), which led to the delimitation of the north-west frontier (1887). The most striking event of his administration was, however, the annexation of Burma, resulting from the Burmese War of 1885; and this procured him, on his resignation, the title of marquess of Dufferin and Ava (1888). His viceroyalty was also memorable for Lady Dufferin’s work, and the starting of a fund called by her name, for providing better medical treatment for native women. In 1888 he was made ambassador at Rome, and in 1892 he was promoted to be ambassador in Paris, a post which he retained till 1896, when he retired from the public service.

Lord Dufferin was one of the most admired public servants of his time. A man of great natural gifts, he had a special talent for diplomacy, though he has no claim to a place in the first rank of statesmen. He was remarkable for tact and amiability, and had a florid and rather elaborately literary style of oratory, which also characterized his despatches and reports. For purposes of ceremony his courtliness, dignity and charm of manner were invaluable, and both in public and in private life he was a conspicuous “great gentleman.” His last years, spent mainly at his Irish home, were clouded by the death of his eldest son, the earl of Ava, at Ladysmith in the Boer War (1900), and by business troubles. He was so ill-advised as to become chairman in 1897 of the “London and Globe Finance Corporation,” a financial company which most good judges in the city of London thought to be too much in the hands of its managing director, Mr Whitaker Wright, whose methods had been a good deal criticized. At last there came a complete crash, and an exposure before the liquidator, which ultimately led to Mr Whitaker Wright’s trial for fraud in 1904, and his suicide within the precincts of the court on being found guilty. Lord Dufferin did not live to see this final catastrophe. The affairs of the company were still under investigation in bankruptcy when, on the 12th of February 1902, he died. He had been in failing health for two or three years, but, having once become chairman of the “London and Globe,” he had insisted upon standing by his colleagues when difficulties arose. Incautious as he had been in accepting the position, no reflections were felt to be possible on Lord Dufferin’s personal honour; he was a serious loser by the failure, and he had followed his predecessor in the chairmanship, Lord Loch, in confiding too wholly in the masterful personality of Mr Wright. He was succeeded in the title by his second son Terence (b. 1866).

The official Life of Lord Dufferin, by Sir Alfred Lyall, appeared in 1905. There are two Canadian histories of his Canadian administration, one by George Stewart (1878), the other by W. Leggo (1878). Lady Dufferin brought out Our Viceregal Life in India in 1889, and My Canadian Journal in 1891. See also the articles on [India]; History; [Canada]: History; and [Egypt]: History.

(H. Ch.)

[1] One branch of the Blackwood family emigrated to France; the head of this line being Adam Blackwood (d. 1613), jurist, poet and divine, and senator of the presidial court of Poitiers.

DUFF-GORDON, LUCIE (1821-1869), English woman of letters, daughter of John and Sarah Austin (q.v.), was born on the 24th of June 1821. Her chief playfellows as a child were her cousin, Henry Reeve, and John Stuart Mill, who lived next door in Queen Square, London. In 1834 the Austins went to Boulogne, and at table d’hôte Lucie found herself next to Heinrich Heine. The poet and the little girl became fast friends, and years afterwards she contributed to Lord Houghton’s Monographs Personal and Social a touching account of a renewal of their friendship when Heine lay dying in Paris. Her parents went to Malta in 1836, and Lucie Austin was left in England at school, but her unconventional education made the restrictions of a girls’ school exceedingly irksome. She showed her independence of character by joining the English Church, though this step was certain to cause pain to her parents, who were Unitarians, and to many of her friends. She married in 1840 Sir Alexander Duff-Gordon (1811-1872). With her mother’s beauty she had inherited her social gifts, and she gathered round her a brilliant circle of friends. George Meredith has analysed and described her extraordinary success as a hostess, and the process by which she reduced too ardent admirers to “happy crust-munching devotees.” “In England, in her day,” he says, “while health was with her, there was one house where men and women conversed. When that house perforce was closed, a light had gone out in our country.” After her father’s death, she fell into weak health and was obliged to seek sunnier climes. She went in 1860 to the Cape of Good Hope, and later to Egypt, where she died on the 14th of July 1869. She had translated among other works Ancient Grecian Mythology (1839) from the German of Niebuhr; Mary Schweidler; The Amber Witch (1844) from the German of Wilhelm Meinhold; and Stella and Vanessa (1850) from the French of A.F.L. de Wailly. Her Letters from the Cape (1862-1863) appeared in 1865; and in 1865 her Letters from Egypt, edited by her mother, attracted much attention. Last Letters from Egypt (1875) contained a memoir by her daughter, Mrs Janet Ross. Lady Duff-Gordon won the hearts of her Arab dependents and neighbours. She doctored their sick, taught their children, and sympathized with their sorrows.

The Letters front Egypt were not originally published in a complete form. A fuller edition than had before been possible, with an introduction by George Meredith, was edited in 1902 by Mrs Janet Ross. See also Mrs Ross’s Three Generations of Englishwomen (1886).

DUFFTOWN, a municipal and police burgh of Banffshire, Scotland, on the Fiddich, 64 m. W.N.W. of Aberdeen by the Great North of Scotland railway. Pop. (1901) 1823. It dates from 1817 and bears the name of its founder, James Duff, 4th earl of Fife. Although planned in the shape of a cross, with a square and tower in the middle, the arms of the cross are not straight, the constructor holding the ingenious opinion that, in order to prevent little towns from being taken in at a glance, their streets should be crooked. The leading industries are lime-works and distilleries, the water being specially fitted for the making of whisky. The town has considerable repute as a health resort, owing partly to its elevation (737 ft.) and partly to the natural charms of the district. The parish of Mortlach, in which Dufftown is situated, is rich in archaeological and historical associations. What is called the Stone of Mortlach is traditionally believed to have been erected to commemorate the success of Malcolm II. over the Danes in 1010. The three large stones known as “The King’s Grave,” a hill-fort, and cairns are of interest to the antiquary. The old church of Mortlach, though restored and almost renewed, still contains some lancet windows and a round-headed doorway, besides monuments dating from 1417. A portion of old Balvenie Castle, a ruin, is considered to be of Pictish origin, but most of it is in the Scots Baronial. It has associations with Alexander Stewart, earl of Buchan and lord of Badenoch (1343-1405), son of Robert II., whose ruffianly conduct in Elginshire earned him the designation of the Wolf of Badenoch, the Comyns, the Douglases (to whom it gave the title of baron in the 15th century), the Stuarts and the Duffs. The new castle, an uninteresting building, was erected in 1724 by the earl of Fife, and though untenanted is maintained in repair. Two miles to the S.E. of Dufftown is the ruined castle of Auchindown, finely situated on a limestone crag, 200 ft. high, of which three sides are washed by the Fiddich and the fourth was protected by a moat. It dates from the 11th century, and once belonged to the Ogilvies, from whom it passed in 1535 to the Gordons. The Gothic hall with rows of fluted pillars is in fair preservation. Ben Rinnes (2755 ft.) and several other hills of lesser altitude all lie within a few miles of Dufftown. About 4 m. to the N.W. is Craigellachie—Gaelic for “the rock of alarm”—(pop. 454), on the confines of Elginshire. It is situated on the Spey amidst scenery of surpassing loveliness. The slogan of the Grants is “Stand fast Craigellachie!” The place has become an important junction of the Great North of Scotland railway system.

DUFFY, SIR CHARLES GAVAN (1816-1903), Irish and colonial politician, was born in Monaghan, Ireland, on the 12th of April 1816. At an early age he became connected with the press, and was one of the founders (1842) of the Nation, a Dublin weekly which was remarkable for its talent, for its seditious tendencies, and for the fire and spirit of its political poetry. In 1844 Duffy was included in the same indictment with O’Connell, and shared his conviction in Dublin and his acquittal by the House of Lords upon a point of law. His ideas, nevertheless, were too revolutionary for O’Connell; a schism took place in 1846, and Duffy united himself to the “Young Ireland” party. He was tried for treason-felony in 1848, but the jury were unable to agree. Duffy continued to agitate in the press and in parliament, to which he was elected in 1852, but his failure to bring about an alliance between Catholics and Protestants upon the land question determined him in 1856 to emigrate to Victoria. There he became in 1857 minister of public works, and after an active political career, in the course of which he was prime minister from 1871 to 1873, when he was knighted, he was elected speaker of the House of Assembly in 1877, being made K.C.M.G. in the same year. In 1880 he resigned and returned to Europe, residing mostly in the south of France. He published The Ballad Poetry of Ireland (1845), several works on Irish history, Conversations with Carlyle (1892), Memoirs (1898), &c. In 1891 he became first president of the Irish Literary Society. He was married three times, his third wife dying in 1889. He died on the 9th of February 1903.

DUFOUR, WILHELM HEINRICH [Guillaume Henri] (1787-1875), Swiss general, was born at Constance of Genevese parents temporarily in exile, on the 15th of September 1787. In 1807 he went to the École Polytechnique at Paris, Switzerland being then under French rule, taking the 140th place only in his entrance examination. By two years’ close study he so greatly improved his position that he was ranked fifth in the exit examination. Immediately on leaving the school he received a commission in the engineers, and was sent to serve in Corfu, which was blockaded by the English. During the Hundred Days he attained the rank of captain, and was employed in raising fortifications at Grenoble. After the peace that followed Waterloo he resumed his status as a Swiss citizen, and devoted himself to the military service of his native land. From 1819 to 1830 he was chief instructor in the military school of Thun, which had been founded mainly through his instrumentality. Among other distinguished foreign pupils he instructed Louis Napoleon, afterwards emperor of the French. In 1827 he was raised to the rank of colonel, and commanded the Federal army in a series of field manœuvres. In 1831 he became chief of the staff, and soon afterwards he was appointed quartermaster-general. Two years later the diet commissioned him to superintend the execution of a complete trigonometrical survey of Switzerland. He had already made a cadastral survey of the canton of Geneva, and published a map of the canton on the scale of 1⁄25000. The larger work occupied thirty-two years, and was accomplished with complete success. The map in 25 sheets on the scale of 1⁄100000 was published at intervals between 1842 and 1865, and is an admirable specimen of cartography. In recognition of the ability with which Dufour had carried out his task, the Federal Council in 1868 ordered the highest peak of Monte Rosa to be named Dufour Spitze. In 1847 Dufour was made general of the Federal Army, which was employed in reducing the revolted Catholic cantons. The quickness and thoroughness with which he performed the painful task, and the wise moderation with which he treated his vanquished fellow-countrymen, were acknowledged by a gift of 60,000 francs from the diet and various honours from different cities and cantons of the confederation. In politics he belonged to the moderate conservative party, and he consequently lost a good deal of his popularity in 1848. In 1864 he presided over the international conference which framed the Geneva Convention as to the treatment of the wounded in time of war, &c. He died on the 14th of July 1875. His De la fortification permanente (1850) is an important and original contribution to the science of fortification, and he was also the author of a Mémoire sur l’artillerie des anciens et sur celle du moyen âge (1840), Manuel de tactique pour les officiers de toutes armes (1842), and various other works in military science. His memoir, La Campagne du Sonderbund (Paris, 1876), is prefaced by a biographical notice. An equestrian statue of General Dufour was erected after his death at Geneva by national subscription.

DUFRÉNOY, OURS PIERRE ARMAND PETIT (1792-1857), French geologist and mineralogist, was born at Sevran, in the department of Seine-et-Oise, in France, on the 5th of September 1792. After leaving the Imperial Lyceum, in 1811, he studied till 1813 at the École Polytechnique, and then entered the Corps des Mines. He subsequently assisted in the management of the École des Mines, of which he was professor of mineralogy and afterwards director. He was also professor of geology at the École des Ponts et Chaussés. In conjunction with Élie de Beaumont he in 1841 published a great geological map of France, the result of investigations carried on during thirteen years (1823-1836). Five years (1836-1841) were spent in writing the text to accompany the map, the publication of the work with two quarto vols. of text extending from 1841-1848; a third volume was issued in 1873. The two authors had already together published Voyage métallurgique en Angleterre (1827, 2nd ed. 1837-1839), Mémoires pour servir à une description géologique de la France, in four vols. (1830-1838), and a Mémoire on Cantal and Mont-Dore (1833). Other literary productions of Dufrénoy are an account of the iron mines of the eastern Pyrenees (1834), and a treatise on mineralogy (3 vols. and atlas, 1844-1845; 2nd ed., 4 vols. and atlas, 1856-1859), in which the geological relations as well as the physical and chemical properties of minerals were dealt with; he likewise contributed numerous papers to the Annales des mines and other scientific publications, one of the most interesting of which is entitled Des terrains volcaniques des environs de Naples. Dufrénoy was a member of the Academy of Sciences, a commander of the Legion of Honour, and an inspector-general of mines. He died in Paris on the 20th of March 1857.

DUFRESNY, CHARLES, Sieur de la Rivière (1648-1724), French dramatist, was born in Paris in 1648. The allegation that his grandfather was an illegitimate son of Henry IV. procured him the liberal patronage of Louis XIV., who gave him the post of valet de chambre, and affixed his name to many lucrative privileges. Dufresny’s expensive habits neutralized all efforts to enrich him, and as if to furnish a piquant commentary on the proverb that poverty makes us acquainted with strange bedfellows, he married, as his second wife, a washerwoman, in discharge of her bill—a whimsicality which supplied Le Sage with an episode in the Diable boiteux, and was made the subject of a comedy by J.M. Deschamps (Charles Rivière Dufresny, ou le mariage impromptu). He died in Paris on the 6th of October 1724. His plays, destitute for the most part of all higher qualities, abound in sprightly wit and pithy sayings. In the six volumes of his Théâtre (Paris, 1731), some of the best are L’Esprit de contradiction (1700), Le Double Veuvage (1701), La Joueuse (1709), La Coquette de village (1715), La Réconciliation normande (1719) and Le Mariage fait et rompu (1721). A volume of Poésies diverses, two volumes of Nouvelles historiques (1692), and Les Amusements sérieux et comiques d’un Siamois (1705), a work to which Montesquieu was indebted for the idea of his Lettres persanes, complete the list of Dufresny’s writings. The best edition of his works is that of 1747 (4 vols.). His Théâtre was edited (1882) by Georges d’Heylli.

DUGAZON [Jean Henri Gourgaud] (1746-1809), French actor, was born in Marseilles on the 15th of November 1746, the son of the director of military hospitals there. He began his career in the provinces, making his début in 1770 at the Comédie Française, where he aspired to leading comedy roles. He pleased the public at once and was made sociétaire in 1772. Dugazon was an ardent revolutionist, helped the schism which divided the company, and went with Talma and the others to what became the Théâtre de la République. After the closing of this theatre, and the dissolution of the Comédie Française, he took refuge at the Théâtre Feydeau until (1799) he returned to the restored Comédie. He retired in 1807, and died insane at Sandillon in 1809. Dugazon wrote three mediocre comedies of a political character, performed at the Théâtre de la République. He married, in 1776, Louis Rose Lefèvre, but was soon divorced and then married again. The first Madame Dugazon (1755-1821), the daughter of a Berlin dancing master, was a charming actress. Her first appearance on the stage was made at the age of twelve as a dancer. It was as an actress “with songs” that she made her début at the Comédie Italienne in 1774 in Grétry’s Sylvain. She was at once admitted pensionnaire and in 1776 sociétaire. Madame Dugazon delighted all Paris, and nightly crowded the Comédie Italienne for more than twenty years. The two kinds of parts with which she was especially identified—young mothers and women past their first youth—are still called “dugazons” and “mères dugazons.” Examples of the first are Jenny in La Dame blanche and Berthe de Simiane in Les Mousquetaires de la reine; of the second, Marguerite in Le Pré aux clercs and the queen in La Part du diable.

Dugazon’s sister, Marie Rose Gourgaud (1743-1804), was an actress who first played at Stuttgart, where she married Angelo, brother of Gaétano Vestris, the dancer. Under the protection of the dukes of Choiseul and Duras, she was commanded to make her début at the Comédie Française in 1768, where she created important parts in a number of tragedies.

DUGDALE, SIR WILLIAM (1605-1686), English antiquary, was born at Shustoke, near Coleshill, in Warwickshire, on the 12th of September 1605, the son of a country gentleman of an old Lancashire stock; he was educated at Coventry. To please his father, who was old and infirm, he married at seventeen. He lived with his wife’s family until his father’s death in 1624, when he went to live at Fillongley, near Shustoke, an estate formerly purchased for him by his father. In 1625 he purchased the manor of Blythe, Shustoke, and removed thither in 1626. He had early shown an inclination for antiquarian studies, and in 1635, meeting Sir Symon Archer (1581-1662), himself a learned antiquary, who was then employed in collecting materials for a history of Warwickshire, he accompanied him to London. There he made the acquaintance of Sir Christopher (afterwards Lord) Hatton, comptroller of the household, and Thomas, earl of Arundel, then earl marshal of England. In 1638 Dugdale was created a pursuivant of arms extraordinary by the name of Blanch Lyon, and in 1639 rouge croix pursuivant in ordinary. He now had a lodging in the Heralds’ Office, and spent much of his time in London examining the records in the Tower and the Cottonian and other collections of MSS. In 1641 Sir Christopher Hatton, foreseeing the war and dreading the ruin and spoliation of the Church, commissioned him to make exact drafts of all the monuments in Westminster Abbey and the principal churches in England, including Peterborough, Ely, Norwich, Lincoln. Newark, Beverley, Southwell, Kingston-upon-Hull, York, Selby, Chester, Lichfield, Tamworth and Warwick. In June 1642 he was summoned to attend the king at York. When war broke out Charles deputed him to summon to surrender the castles of Banbury and Warwick, and other strongholds which were being rapidly filled with ammunition and rebels. He went with Charles to Oxford, remaining there till its surrender in 1646. He witnessed the battle of Edgehill, where he made afterwards an exact survey of the field, noting how the armies were drawn up, and where and in what direction the various movements took place, and marking the graves of the slain. In November 1642 he was admitted M.A. of the university, and in 1644 the king created him Chester herald. During his leisure at Oxford he collected material at the Bodleian and college libraries for his books. In 1646 Dugdale returned to London and compounded for his estates, which had been sequestrated, by a payment of £168. After a visit to France in 1648 he continued his antiquarian researches in London, collaborating with Richard Dodsworth in his Monasticon Anglicanum, which was published successively in single volumes in 1655, 1664 and 1673. At the Restoration he obtained the office of Norroy king-at-arms, and in 1677 was created garter principal king-at-arms, and was knighted. He died “in his chair” at Blythe Hall on the 10th of February 1686.

Dugdale’s most important works are Antiquities of Warwickshire (1656); Monasticon Anglicanum (1655-1673); History of St Paul’s Cathedral (1658); and Baronage of England (1675-1676). His Life, written by himself up to 1678, with his diary and correspondence, and an index to his manuscript collections, was edited by William Hamper, and published in 1827.

DUGONG, one of the two existing generic representatives of the Sirenia, or herbivorous aquatic mammals. Dugongs are distinguished from their cousins the manatis by the presence in the upper jaw of the male of a pair of large tusks, which in the female are arrested in their growth, and remain concealed. There are never more than five molar teeth on each side of either jaw, or twenty in all, and these are flat on the grinding surface. The flippers are unprovided with nails, and the tail is broad, and differs from that of the manati in being crescent-shaped instead of rounded. The bones are hard and firm, and take a polish equal to that of ivory. Dugongs frequent the shallow waters of the tropical seas, extending from the east coast of Africa north of the mouth of the Zambezi, along the shores of the Indian, Malayan and Australian seas, where they may be seen basking on the surface of the water, or browsing on submarine pastures of seaweed, for which the thick obtuse lips and truncated snout pre-eminently fit them. They are gregarious, feeding in large numbers in localities where they are not often disturbed. The female produces a single young one at a birth, and is remarkable for the great affection it shows for its offspring, so that when the young dugong is caught there is no difficulty in capturing the mother. Three species—the Indian dugong (Halicore dugong), the Red Sea dugong (H. tabernaculi) and the Australian dugong (H. australis)—are commonly recognized. The first is abundant along the shores of the Indian Ocean, and is captured in large numbers by the Malays, who esteem its flesh a great delicacy; the lean portions, especially of young specimens, are regarded by Europeans as excellent eating. It is generally taken by spearing, the main object of the hunter being to raise the tail out of the water, when the animal becomes perfectly powerless. It seldom attains a length of more than 8 or 10 ft. The Australian dugong is a larger species, attaining sometimes a length of 15 ft.; it occurs along the Australian coast from Moreton Bay to Cape York, and is highly valued by the natives, who hunt it with spears, and gorge themselves with its flesh, when they are fortunate enough to secure a carcase. Of late years the oil obtained from the blubber of this species has been largely used in Australia as a substitute for cod-liver oil. It does not contain iodine, but is said to possess all the therapeutic qualities of cod-liver oil without its nauseous taste. A full-grown dugong yields from 10 to 12 gallons of oil, and this forms in cold weather a thick mass, and requires to be melted before a fire previous to being used. The flesh of the Australian dugong is easy of digestion, the muscular fibre when fresh resembling beef, and when salted having the flavour of bacon. In the earliest Australian dugong-fishery natives were employed to harpoon these animals, which soon, however, became too wary to allow themselves to be approached near enough for this purpose, and the harpoon was abandoned for the net. The latter is spread at night, and in its meshes dugongs are caught in considerable numbers.

(R. L.*)

DUGUAY-TROUIN, RENÉ (1673-1736), French sea captain, belonged to a well-known family of merchants and sea captains of St Malo. He was born at St Malo on the 10th of June 1673. He was originally intended for the church, and studied with that view at Rennes and Caen; but on the breaking out of the war with England and Holland in 1689 he went to sea in a privateer owned by his family. During the first three months his courage was tried by a violent tempest, an imminent shipwreck, the boarding of an English ship, and the threatened destruction of his own vessel by fire. The following year, as a volunteer in a vessel of 28 guns, he was present in a bloody combat with an English fleet of five merchant vessels. The courage he then showed was so remarkable that in 1691, at the age of eighteen, his family gave him a corsair of 14 guns; and having been thrown by a tempest on the coast of Ireland, he burned two English ships in the river Limerick. In 1694 his vessel of 40 guns was captured by the English, and, being taken prisoner, he was confined in the castle of Plymouth. He escaped, according to his own account, by the help of a pretty shopwoman and her lover, a French refugee in the English service. He then obtained command of a vessel of 48 guns, and made a capture of English vessels on the Irish coast. In 1696 he made a brilliant capture of Dutch vessels, and the king hearing an account of the affair gave him a commission as capitaine de frégate (commander) in the royal navy. In 1704-1705 he desolated the coasts of England. In 1706 he was raised to the rank of captain of a vessel of the line. In 1707 he was made chevalier of the order of St Louis, and captured off the Lizard the greater part of an English convoy of troops and munitions bound for Portugal. His most glorious action was the capture in 1711 of Rio Janeiro, on which he imposed a heavy contribution. In 1715 he was made chef d’escadre, the rank which in the French navy answered to the English commodore, and in 1728 commander of the order of St Louis and lieutenant général des armées navales. In 1731 he commanded a squadron for the protection of French commerce in the Levant. He died on the 27th of September 1736.

See his own Mémoires (1740); and J. Poulain, Duguay-Trouin (1882).

DU GUESCLIN, BERTRAND (c. 1320-1380), constable of France, the most famous French warrior of his age, was born of an ancient but undistinguished family at the castle of La Motte-Broons (Dinan). The date of his birth is doubtful, the authorities varying between 1311 and 1324. The name is spelt in various ways in contemporary records, e.g. Claquin, Klesquin, Guescquin, Glayaquin, &c. The familiar form is found on his monument at St Denis, and in some legal documents of the time. In his boyhood Bertrand was a dull learner, spending his time in open-air sports and exercises, and could never read or write. He was remarkable for ugliness, and was an object of aversion to his parents. He first made himself a name as a soldier at the tournament held at Rennes in 1338 to celebrate the marriage of Charles of Blois with Jeanne de Penthièvre, at which he unseated the most famous competitors. In the war which followed between Charles of Blois and John de Montfort, for the possession of the duchy of Brittany, he served his apprenticeship as a soldier (1341). As he was not a great baron with a body of vassals at his command, he put himself at the head of a band of adventurers, and fought on the side of Charles and of France. He distinguished himself by a brilliant action at the siege of Vannes in 1342; and after that he disappears from history for some years.

In 1354, having shortly before been made a knight, he was sent into England with the lords of Brittany to treat for the ransom of Charles of Blois, who had been defeated and captured by the English in 1347. When Rennes and Dinan were attacked by the duke of Lancaster in 1356, Du Guesclin fought continuously against the English, and at this time he engaged in a celebrated duel with Sir Thomas Canterbury. He finally forced his way with provisions and reinforcements into Rennes, which he successfully defended till June 1357, when the siege was raised in pursuance of the truce of Bordeaux. For this service he was rewarded with the lordship of Pontorson. Shortly afterwards he passed into the service of France, and greatly distinguished himself at the siege of Melun (1359), being, however, taken prisoner a little later by Sir Robert Knollys. In 1360, 1361 and 1362 he was continually in the field, being again made prisoner in 1360. In 1364 he married, but was soon again in the field, this time against the king of Navarre. In May 1364 he won an important victory over the Navarrese at Cocherel, and took the famous Captal de Buch prisoner. He had previously been made lord of La Roche-Tesson (1361) and chamberlain (1364); he was now made count of Longueville and lieutenant of Normandy. Shortly afterwards, in aiding Charles of Blois, Du Guesclin was taken prisoner by Sir John Chandos at the battle of Auray, in which Charles was killed. The close of the general war, however, had released great numbers of mercenaries (the great companies) from control, and, as they began to play the part of brigands in France, it was necessary to get rid of them. Du Guesclin was ransomed for 100,000 crowns, and was charged to lead them out of France. He marched with them into Spain, supported Henry of Trastamara against Pedro the Cruel, set the former upon the throne of Castile (1366), and was made constable of Castile and count of Trastamara. In the following year he was defeated and captured by the Black Prince, ally of Pedro, at Navarette, but was soon released for a heavy ransom. Once more he fought for Henry, won the battle of Montiel (1369), reinstated him on the throne, and was created duke of Molinas.

In May 1370, at the command of Charles V., who named him constable of France, he returned to France. War had just been declared against England, and Du Guesclin was called to take part in it. For nearly ten years he was engaged in fighting against the English in the south and the west of France, recovering from them the provinces of Poitou, Guienne and Auvergne, and thus powerfully contributing to the establishment of a united France. In 1373, when the duke of Brittany sought English aid against a threatened invasion by Charles V., Du Guesclin was sent at the head of a powerful army to seize the duchy, which he did; and two years later he frustrated the attempt of the duke with an English army to recover it. Finding in 1379 that the king entertained suspicions of his fidelity to him, he resolved to give up his constable’s sword and retire to Spain. His resolution was at first proof against remonstrance; but ultimately he received back the sword, and continued in the service of France. In 1380 he was sent into Languedoc to suppress disturbances and brigandage, provoked by the harsh government of the duke of Anjou. His first act was to lay siege to the fortress of Châteauneuf-Randon, but on the eve of its surrender the constable died on the 13th of July 1380. His remains were interred, by order of the king, in the church of St Denis. Du Guesclin lost his first wife in 1371, and married a second in 1373, but he left no legitimate children.

See biography by D.F. Jamison (Charleston, 1863), which was translated into French (1866) by order of Marshal Count Randon, minister of war; also S. Luce, Histoire de B. du Guesclin (Paris, 1876).

DUHAMEL, JEAN BAPTISTE (1624-1706), French physicist, was born in 1624 at Vire in Normandy. He studied at Caen and Paris; wrote at eighteen a tract on the Spherics of Theodosius of Tripolis; then became an Oratorian priest, and fulfilled with great devotion for ten years (1653-1663) the duties of curé at Neuilly-sur-Marne. He was appointed in 1656 almoner to the king, and in 1666 perpetual secretary to the newly founded Academy of Sciences. He died on the 6th of August 1706. He published among other works: Astronomia physica (1660) and De meteoris et fossilibus (1660), both in dialogue form; De consensu veteris et novae philosophiae (1663); De corporum affectionibus (1672); De mente humana (1673); Regiae scientiarum Academiae historia, 1666-1696 (1698), new edition brought down to 1700 (1701); Institutiones biblicae (1698); followed by annotated editions of the Psalms (1701), of the Book of Wisdom, &c. (1703), and of the entire Bible in 1705.

DUHAMEL DU MONCEAU, HENRI LOUIS (1700-1782), French botanist and engineer, son of Alexandre Duhamel, lord of Denainvilliers, was born at Paris in 1700. Having been requested by the Academy of Sciences to investigate a disease which was destroying the saffron plant in Gâtinais, he discovered the cause in a parasitical fungus which attached itself to the roots, and this achievement gained him admission to the Academy in 1728. From then until his death he busied himself chiefly with making experiments in vegetable physiology. Having learned from Sir Hans Sloane that madder possesses the property of giving colour to the bones, he fed animals successively on food mixed and unmixed with madder; and he found that their bones in general exhibited concentric strata of red and white, whilst the softer parts showed in the meantime signs of having been progressively extended. From a number of experiments he was led to believe himself able to explain the growth of bones, and to demonstrate a parallel between the manner of their growth and that of trees. Along with the naturalist Buffon, he made numerous experiments on the growth and strength of wood, and experimented also on the growth of the mistletoe, on layer planting, on smut in corn, &c. He was probably the first, in 1736, to distinguish clearly between the alkalis, potash and soda. From the year 1740 he made meteorological observations, and kept records of the influence of the weather on agricultural production. For many years he was inspector-general of marine, and applied his scientific acquirements to the improvement of naval construction. He died at Paris on the 13th of August 1782.

His works are nearly ninety in number, and include many technical handbooks. The principal are:—Traité des arbres et arbustes qui se cultivent en France en pleine terre; Éléments de l’architecture navale; Traité général des pêches maritimes et fluviatiles; Éléments d’agriculture; La Physique des arbres; Des Semis et plantations des arbres et de leur culture; De l’exploitation des bois; Traité des arbres fruitiers.

DÜHRING, EUGEN KARL (1833-1901), German philosopher and political economist, was born on the 12th of January 1833 at Berlin. After a legal education he practised at Berlin as a lawyer till 1859. A weakness of the eyes, ending in total blindness, occasioned his taking up the studies with which his name is now connected. In 1864 he became docent of the university of Berlin, but, in consequence of a quarrel with the professoriate, was deprived of his licence to teach in 1874. Among his works are Kapital und Arbeit (1865); Der Wert des Lebens (1865); Natürliche Dialektik (1865); Kritische Geschichte der Philosophie (1869); Kritische Geschichte der allgemeinen Principien der Mechanik (1872)—one of his most successful works; Kursus der National- und Sozialökonomie (1873); Kursus der Philosophie (1875), entitled in a later edition Wirklichkeitsphilosophie; Logik und Wissenschaftstheorie (1878); Der Ersatz der Religion durch Vollkommeneres (1883). He published his autobiography in 1882 under the title Sache, Leben und Feinde; the mention of “Feinde” (enemies) is characteristic. Dühring’s philosophy claims to be emphatically the philosophy of reality. He is passionate in his denunciation of everything which, like mysticism, tries to veil reality. He is almost Lucretian in his anger against religion which would withdraw the secret of the universe from our direct gaze. His “substitute for religion” is a doctrine in many points akin to Comte and Feuerbach, the former of whom he resembles in his sentimentalism. Dühring’s opinions changed considerably after his first appearance as a writer. His earlier work, Natürliche Dialektik, in form and matter not the worst of his writings, is entirely in the spirit of the Critical Philosophy. Later, in his movement towards Positivism, he strongly repudiates Kant’s separation of phenomenon from noumenon, and affirms that our intellect is capable of grasping the whole reality. This adequacy of thought to things is due to the fact that the universe contains but one reality, i.e. matter. It is to matter that we must look for the explanation both of conscious and of physical states. But matter is not, in his system, to be understood with the common meaning, but with a deeper sense as the substratum of all conscious and physical existence; and thus the laws of being are identified with the laws of thought. In this materialistic or quasi-materialistic system Dühring finds room for teleology; the end of Nature, he holds, is the production of a race of conscious beings. From his belief in teleology he is not deterred by the enigma of pain; he is a determined optimist. Pain exists to throw pleasure into conscious relief. In ethics Dühring follows Comte in making sympathy the foundation of morality. In political philosophy he teaches an ethical communism, and attacks the Darwinian principle of struggle for existence. In economics he is best known by his vindication of the American writer H.C. Carey, who attracts him both by his theory of value, which suggests an ultimate harmony of the interests of capitalist and labourer, and also by his doctrine of “national” political economy, which advocates protection on the ground that the morals and culture of a people are promoted by having its whole system of industry complete within its own borders. His patriotism is fervent, but narrow and exclusive. He idolized Frederick the Great, and denounced Jews, Greeks, and the cosmopolitan Goethe. Dühring’s clear, incisive writing is disfigured by arrogance and ill-temper, failings which may be extenuated on the ground of his physical affliction. He died in 1901.

See H. Druskowitz, Eugen Dühring (Heidelberg, 1888); E. Döll, Eugen Dühring (Leipzig, 1892); F. Engels, Eugen D.’s Umwalzung der Wissenschaft (3rd ed., Stuttgart, 1894); H. Vaihinger, Hartmann, Dühring und Lange (1876).

(H. St.)

DUIGENAN, PATRICK (1735-1816), Irish lawyer and politician, was the son of a Leitrim Roman Catholic farmer named O’Duibhgeannain. Through the tuition of the local Protestant clergyman, who was interested in the boy, he got a scholarship in 1756 at Trinity College, Dublin, and subsequently became a fellow. He was called to the Irish bar in 1767 and obtained a rich practice. He is remembered, however, mainly as a politician, on account of his opposition to Grattan, his support of the Union, and his violent antagonism to Catholic emancipation. He was elected member for Armagh in the first united parliament, and was a well-known character at Westminster till he died on the 11th of April 1816.

DUIKER (diver), or Duikerbok, the Dutch name of a small S. African antelope, scientifically known as Cephalophus grimmi; the popular name alluding to its habit of diving into and threading its way through thick bush. Scientifically the name is extended to include all the members of the African genus Cephalophus, which, together with the Indian chousingha, or four-horned antelope (Tetraceros), constitutes the subfamily Cephalophinae. Duikers are animals of small or medium size, usually frequenting thick forest. The horns, usually present in both sexes, are small and straight, situated far back on the forehead; and between them rises the crest-like tuft of hair from which the genus takes its scientific name. The common or true duiker (C. grimmi) is found in bush-country from the Cape to the Zambezi and Nyasaland, and ranges northward on the west coast to Angola. The banded duiker (C. doriae) from West Africa is golden brown with black transverse bands on the back and loins. C. sylvicultor, of West Africa, is the largest species, and approaches a donkey in size. (See [Antelope].)

(R. L.*)

DUILIUS (or Duellius), GAIUS, Roman general during the first Carthaginian War and commander in the first Roman naval victory. In 260 B.C., when consul in command of the land forces in Sicily, he was appointed to supersede his colleague Cn. Cornelius Scipio Asina, commander of the fleet, who had been captured in the harbour of Lipara. Recognizing that the only chance of victory lay in fighting under conditions as similar as possible to those of a land engagement, he invented a system of grappling irons (corvi) and boarding bridges, and gained a brilliant victory over the Carthaginian fleet off Mylae on the north coast of Sicily. He was accorded a triumph and the distinction of being accompanied, when walking in the streets during the evening, by a torchbearer and a flute-player. A memorial column (columna rostrata), adorned with the beaks of the captured ships, was set up in honour of his victory. The inscription upon it (see [Latin Language], section 3, “The Language as Recorded”) has been preserved in a restored form in pseudo-archaic language, ascribed to the reign of Claudius.

See Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, i. No. 195; Polybius i. 22; Diod. Sic. xvii. 44; Frontinus, Strat. ii. 3; Florus ii. 2; Cicero, De senectute, 13; Silius Italicus vi. 667; and [Punic Wars].

DUISBURG, a town of Germany in the kingdom of Prussia, 15 m. by rail N. from Düsseldorf, between the Rhine and the Ruhr, with which rivers it communicates by a canal. It is an important railway centre. Pop. (1885) 47,519; (1900) 92,729; (1905), including many outlying townships then recently incorporated, 191,551. It has six Roman Catholic and six Protestant churches, among the latter the fine Gothic Salvatorkirche, of the 15th century. It is well furnished with schools, which include a school of machinery. Of modern erections, the concert hall, the law courts and a memorial fountain to the cartographer Gerhard Kremer (Mercator) are worthy of mention. There are important foundries, rolling mills for copper, steel and brass plates, chemical works, saw-milling, shipbuilding, tobacco, cotton, sugar, soap and other manufactures.

Duisburg was known to the Romans as Castrum Deutonis, and mentioned under the Frankish kings as Dispargum. In the 12th century it attained the rank of an imperial free town, but on being mortgaged in 1290 to Cleves it lost its privileges. At the beginning of the 17th century it was transferred to Brandenburg, and during the Thirty Years’ War was alternately occupied by the Spaniards and the Dutch. In 1655 the elector Frederick William of Brandenburg founded here a Protestant university, which flourished until 1802.

DUK-DUK, a secret society of New Britain or New Pomerania, Bismarck Archipelago, in the South Pacific. The society has religious and political as well as social objects. It represents a rough sort of law and order through its presiding spirit Duk-Duk, a mysterious figure dressed in leaves to its waist, with a helmet like a gigantic candle-extinguisher made of network. Upon this figure women and children are forbidden to look. Women, who are entitled in New Britain to their own earnings and work harder than men, are the special victims of Duk-Duk, who levies blackmail upon them if they are about during its visits. These are generally timed to coincide with the hours at which the women are out in the fields and therefore cannot help seeing the figure. Justice is executed, fines extorted, taboos, feasts, taxes and all tribal matters are arranged by the Duk-Duk members, who wear hideous masks or chalk their faces. In carrying out punishments they are allowed to burn houses and even kill people. Only males can belong to Duk-Duk, the entrance fees of which vary from 50 to 100 fathoms of dewarra (small cowrie shells strung on strips of cane). The society has its secret signs and ritual, and festivals at which the presence of a stranger would mean his death. Duk-Duk only appears with the full moon. The society is now much discredited and is fast dying out.

See “Duk-Duk and other Customs or Forms of Expression of the Melanesian’s Intellectual Life,” by Graf von Pfeil (Journ. of Anthrop. Instit. vol. 27, p. 181).

DUKE (corresponding to Fr. duc, Ital. duca, Ger. Herzog), the title of one of the highest orders of the European nobility, and of some minor sovereign princes. The word “duke,” which is derived from the Lat. dux, a leader, or general, through the Fr. duc (O. Fr. dusc, ducs, dus), originally signified a leader, and more especially a military chief, and in this latter sense was the equivalent of the A.S. heretoga (here, an army, and teon, from togen, to draw; Ger. ziehen, zog; Goth, tiuhan; Lat. ducere) and the old Ger. herizog. In this general sense the word survived in English literature until the 17th century, but is now obsolete.

The origin of modern dukes is twofold. The dux first appears in the Roman empire under the emperor Hadrian, and by the time of the Gordians has already a recognized place in the official hierarchy. He was the general appointed to the command of a particular expedition and his functions were purely military. In the 4th century, after the separation of the civil and military administrations, there was a duke in command of the troops quartered in each of the frontier provinces of the empire, e.g. the dux Britanniarum. The number of dukes continually increased, and in the 6th and 7th centuries there were duces at Rome, Naples, Rimini, Venice and Perugia. Gradually, too, they became charged with civil as well as military functions, and even exercised considerable authority in ecclesiastical administration. Under the Byzantine emperors they were the representatives in all causes of the central power. The Roman title of duke was less dignified than that of count (comes, companion) which implied an honourable personal relation to the emperor (see [Count]). Both titles were borrowed by the Merovingian kings for the administrative machinery of the Frank empire, and under them the functions of the duke remained substantially unaltered. He was a great civil and military official, charged to watch, in the interests of the crown, over groups of several comitatus, or countships, especially in the border provinces. The sphere of the dukes was never rigidly fixed, and their commission was sometimes permanent, sometimes temporary. Under the Carolingians the functions of the dukes remained substantially the same; but with the decay of the royal power in the 10th century, both dukes and counts gained in local authority; the number of dukes became for the time fixed, and finally title and office were made hereditary, the relation to the crown being reduced to that of more or less shadowy vassalage. (See [Feudalism].)

Side by side with these purely official dukedoms, however, there had continued to exist, or had sprung up, either independently or in more or less of subjection to the Frank rulers, national dukedoms, such as those of the Alemanni, the Aquitanians, and, later, of the Bavarians and Thuringians. These were developed from the early Teutonic custom by which the herizog was elected by the nation as leader for a particular campaign, as in the case of the heretogas who had led the first Saxon invaders into Britain. Tacitus says of the ancient Germans reges ex nobilitate, duces ex virtute sumunt; i.e. they elected their dukes for their warlike prowess only, and as purely military chiefs, whereas their kings were chosen from a royal family of divine descent. Sometimes the dukes so chosen succeeded in making their power permanent without taking the style of king. To this national category belong, besides the great German dukedoms, the dukes of Normandy, and the Lombard dukes of Spoleto and Benevento, who traced their origin, not to an administrative office, but to the leadership of Teutonic war bands. With the development of the feudal system the distinction between the official and the national dukedoms was more and more obliterated. By the 13th and 14th centuries the title had become purely territorial, and implied no necessary overlordship over counts and other nobles, who existed side by side with the dukes as tenants-in-chief of the crown. From this time the significance of the ducal title varies widely in different countries. Whenever the crown got the better of the feudal spirit of independence, as in France or Naples, it sank from being a sovereign title to a mere social distinction, implying no political power, and not necessarily any territorial influence. In northern Italy and in Germany, on the other hand, where the crown had proved too weak to combat the forces of disruption, it came ultimately to imply independent sovereignty.

The abolition of the Holy Empire in 1806 removed even the shadow of vassalage from the German reigning dukes, who retain their sovereign status under the new empire. Only one, however, the grand duke of Luxemburg, is now both sovereign and independent. Besides the sovereign dukes in Germany there are certain “mediatized” ducal houses, e.g. that of Ratibor, which share with the dispossessed families of the Italian sovereign duchies certain royal privileges, notably that of equality of blood (Ebenbürtigkeit). In Italy, where titles of nobility give no precedence at court, that of duke (duca) has lost nearly all even of its social significance owing to lavish creations by the popes and minor sovereigns, and to the fact that the title often passes by purchase with a particular estate. Political significance it has none. Some great Italian nobles are dukes, notably the heads of the great Roman ducal families, but not all Italian dukes are great nobles.

In France the title duke at one time implied vast territorial power, as with the dukes of Burgundy, Normandy, Aquitaine and Brittany, who asserted a practical independence against the crown, though it was not till the 12th century that the title duke was definitely regarded as superior to others. At first (in the 10th and 11th centuries) it had no defined significance, and even a baron of the higher nobility called himself in charters duke, count or even marquis, indifferently. In any case the strengthening of the royal power gradually sapped the significance of the title, until on the eve of the Revolution it implied no more than high rank and probably territorial wealth.

There were, under the ancien régime, three classes of dukes in France: (1) dukes who were peers (see [Peerage]) and had a seat in the parlement of Paris; (2) hereditary dukes who were not peers; (3) “brevet” dukes, created for life only. The French duke ranks in Spain with the “grandee” (q.v.), and vice versa. In republican France the already existing titles are officially recognized, but they are now no more than the badges of distinguished ancestry. Besides the descendants of the feudal aristocracy there are in France certain ducal families dating from Napoleon I.’s creation of 1806 (e.g. ducs d’Albufera, de Montebello, de Feltre), from Louis Philippe (duc d’Isly, and duc d’Audiffret-Pasquier), and from Napoleon III. (Malakoff, Magenta, Morny).

In England the title of duke was unknown till the 14th century, though in Saxon times the title ealdorman, afterwards exchanged for “earl,” was sometimes rendered in Latin as dux,[1] and the English kings till John’s time styled themselves dukes of Normandy, and dukes of Aquitaine even later. In 1337 King Edward III. erected the county of Cornwall into a duchy for his son Edward the Black Prince, who was thus the first English duke. The second was Henry, earl of Lancaster, Derby, Lincoln and Leicester, who was created duke of Lancaster in 1351. In Scotland the title of duke was first bestowed in 1398 by Robert III. on his eldest son David, who was made duke of Rothesay, and on his brother, who became duke of Albany.

British dukes rank next to princes and princesses of the blood royal, the two archbishops of Canterbury and York, the lord Chancellor, &c., but beyond this precedence they have no special privileges which are not shared by peers of lower rank (see [Peerage]). Though their full style as proclaimed by the herald is “most high, potent and noble prince,” and they are included in the Almanach de Gotha, they are not recognized as the equals in blood of the crowned or mediatized dukes of the continent, and the daughter of an English duke marrying a foreign royal prince can only take his title by courtesy, or where, under the “house-laws” of certain families, a family council sanctions the match. The eldest son of an English duke takes as a rule by courtesy the second title of his father, and ranks, with or without the title, as a marquess. The other sons and daughters bear the titles “Lord” and “Lady” before their Christian names, also by courtesy. A duke in the British peerage, if not royal, is addressed as “Your Grace” and is styled “the Most Noble.” (See [Archduke], [Grand Duke], and, for the ducal coronet, [Crown and Coronet].)

(W. A. P.)

[1] So Ego Haroldus dux, Ego Tostinus dux, in a charter of Edward the Confessor (1060), Hist. MSS. Comm. 12th rep. app. pt. ix. p. 581.

DUKE OF EXETER’S DAUGHTER, a nickname applied to a 15th-century instrument of torture resembling the rack (q.v.). Blackstone says (Commentaries, ii. sec. 326): “The trial by rack is utterly unknown to the law of England, though once when the dukes of Exeter and Suffolk, and other ministers of Henry VI., had laid a design to introduce the civil (i.e. Roman) law into the kingdom as the rule of government, for a beginning thereof they erected a rack for torture, which was called in derision the duke of Exeter’s daughter, and still remains in the Tower of London, where it was used as an engine of state, not of law, more than once in Queen Elizabeth’s reign. But when, upon the assassination of Villiers, duke of Buckingham, by Felton, it was proposed in the privy council to put the assassin to the rack, in order to discover his accomplices, the judges being consulted, declared unanimously that no such proceeding was allowable by the laws of England.”

DUKER, CARL ANDREAS (1670-1752), German classical scholar and jurist, was born at Unna in Westphalia. He studied at the university of Franeker under Jacob Perizonius. In 1700 he was appointed teacher of history and eloquence at the Herborn gymnasium, in 1704 vice-principal of the school at the Hague, and in 1716 he succeeded (with Drakenborch as colleague) to the professorship formerly held by Peter Burmann at Utrecht. After eighteen years’ tenure he resigned his post, and lived in retirement at Ysselstein and Vianen. His health finally broke down under excessive study, and he died, almost blind, at the house of a relative in Meiderich near Duisburg, on the 5th of November 1752. His chief classical works were editions of Florus (1722) and Thucydides (1731, considered his best). He brought out the 2nd edition of Perizonius’s Origines Babylonicae et Aegyptiacae (1736) and his commentary on Pomponius Mela (1736-1737). Duker was also an authority on ancient law, and published Opuscula varia de latinitate veterum jurisconsultorum (1711), and a revision of the Leges Atticae of S. Petit (1741).

See C. Saxe, Onomasticon litterarium, vi. 267; articles in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie and in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopadie.

DUKERIES, THE, a name given to a district in the N.W. of Nottinghamshire, England; included within the ancient Sherwood Forest (q.v.). The name is taken from the existence of several adjacent demesnes of noblemen, and the character of the Forest is to some extent preserved here. On the north is the Sheffield-Retford branch of the Great Central railway, serving the town of Worksop, connecting at Retford with the Great Northern railway, while on the south the Great Central railway serves the small market town of Ollerton, and connects with the Great Northern at Dukeries Junction. The following demesnes are comprised in the district. Worksop Manor formerly belonged to the dukes of Norfolk. Welbeck Abbey is the seat of the dukes of Portland, to whom it came from the Cavendish family (dukes of Newcastle); the mansion is mainly classic in style, dating from the early 17th century, but with many subsequent additions; the fifth duke of Portland (d. 1879) built the curious series of subterranean corridors and chambers beneath the grounds. Clumber House, the seat of the dukes of Newcastle, is beautifully placed above a lake in a fine park. Thoresby House is the seat of the earls Manvers, to whom it came on the extinction of the dukedom of Kingston; part of this demesne is a splendid tract of wild woodland.

DUKES, LEOPOLD (1810-1891), Hungarian critic of Jewish literature. He spent about twenty years in England, and from his researches in the Bodleian library and the British Museum (which contain two of the most valuable Hebrew libraries in the world) Dukes was able to complete the work of Zunz (q.v.). The most popular work of Dukes was his Rabbinische Blumenlese (1844), in which he collected the rabbinic proverbs and illustrated them from the gnomic literatures of other peoples. Dukes made many contributions to philology, but his best work was connected with the medieval Hebrew poetry, especially Ibn Gabirol.

(I. A.)