Abed-nebo) certainly is. The form Nebuchadnezzar, for Nebuchadrezzar, is not peculiar to Daniel, and can hardly be used in argument. (2.) Traces of Babylonian ideas have been most industriously sought for by Mr. Fuller, but they are too uncertain to be of any appreciable value. Who can believe that that fine appellation, "the Ancient of days" (vii. 22), is derived from the eternally self-begotten Hea (the god of the waters), when there is so obvious a source for the phrase in the second part of Isaiah, or that "like a son of the gods" (iii. 25) means, "like the divine fire-god Bar"? Nor is M. Lenormant much more fortunate in his supposed discovery of a reference to Nebuchadnezzar's equally supposed recognition of one supreme deity. The fact is that the greater gods of Babylonia at this period were two in number, viz., Maruduk (Merodach) and Nabu (Nebo), who are coupled, for instance, by Nebuchadnezzar in the great inscription translated by M. Oppert. (3.) There are in Daniel three undoubted points of agreement with Babylonian custom, viz., the punishment of burning alive (iii. 6), the description of the dress of the courtiers (iii. 21), and the mention of the presence of women at feasts (v. 2). On the other hand, there is (a) a striking inaccuracy in the use of the term "Chaldeans" for "astrologers." This use is directly opposed by the cuneiform inscriptions, and it is useless (in the face of Hebrew etymology) to meet this fact by an imaginary correspondence of the three names for the wise men in the book of Daniel to the three leading classes of magicians, etc., mentioned in the inscriptions. (b) There is also (as M. Lenormant has observed) an error in the use of the Assyrian saknu (reproduced in the Aramaic of ii. 48), which really means " a high civil officer," but is used in Daniel in the sense of arch-magician. (4.) The points of disagreement between the book of Daniel and Babylonian history have probably been exaggerated. It is true the former tells us many strange things of Nebuchadnezzar, who is only known in history as a great warrior, a great builder, and a great patron of learning. His lycanthropy is not mentioned in any historical documents as yet discovered; to quote Berosus (ap. Josephus, contr. Ap. i. 20) is entirely beside the mark, as Hilgenfeld and Mr. Fuller have convincingly shown. The statements respecting Belshazzar have been in part confirmed. Bilusarra-usur is the name of the eldest son of Nabu-nahid or Nabonadius, and a dated tablet in the British Museum, recently obtained from Babylon, proves that the last king of Babylon was Maruduk-sarra-usur, which may be the same name as Belshazzar, since Maruduk is identical with Bel-Merodach. It must be confessed, however, that Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, as appears to be stated in Dan. v. 2, 11, 18, 22. This has been met by the assertion that "son" in Dan. v. means "grandson" but that Belshazzar was even the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar is still unproved, not to mention the strangeness of interpreting "thy father" in v. 11 as = "my father" (on the hypothesis that Belshazzar's mother was daughter of Nebuchadnezzar). The most puzzling discrepancy, however, relates to the name of the Medo-Persian king, who "received" from God's hands the "distributed" Babylonian empire (v. 28, 31). The book of Daniel states (v. 31) that this was Darius the Mede; profane history asserts that it was Cyrus the Persian. Many attempts have been made to reconcile these opposing statements. Some think that Darius the Mede was Astyages, but there is a chronological difficulty; others, Cyaxares II., but we are not certain that such a king existed; while Des Vignoles and M. Lenormant would make him a Median prince, rewarded by Cyrus for his fidelity with the vassal kingship of Babylon. Unfortunately this Median_prince is at present even more shadowy than Cyaxares II. "The inscriptions," remarks Mr. G. Smith, "have as yet afforded no information on this point." But this is not the only difficulty about Darius the Mede. In ix. 1 we are told that he was the son of Ahasuerus, who on philological grounds must be identified with Xerxes. This, when taken in conjunction with the facts concerning Belteshazzar, suggests that the author or editor fell into three errors, by supposing (1) that the conqueror of Babylon was not Cyrus but Darius I.; (2) that Darius I. came after, instead of before, Xerxes; and (3) that he was son, whereas he was really father, of that monarch. There are two "undesigned coincidences," to be mentioned presently, which appear to confirm this view. Thus far the evidence preponderates against the theory that the narratives in the book of Daniel-or, to be quiie safe, let us say the narratives in their present form-were written by a resident in Babylon. Two other historical inaccuracies ought not to be slurred over, though they are certainly unfavorable to the authorship of Daniel. One is the chronological statement in i. 1. It may fairly be urged (a) that, if the battle of Carchemish took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. xlvi. 2), Jerusalem cannot have been captured in the third; and (b) that our one certainly contemporary authority, the prophet Jeremiah, nowhere alludes to a captivity at this period. The other is the statement (vi. 1) that Darius the Mede appointed 120 satraps (so in the Hebrew), whereas Darius Hystaspis only mentions 23 satrapies (Records of the Past, vii. 88). A similar apparent confusion between satrapies and inferior governments appears in the Alexandrine translation of 1 Kings x. 15. This translation was made in the Greek period; presumably, therefore, the book of Daniel was written (or edited) in the Greek period. This, it should be added, is one of the "undersigned coincidences" which confirm a view mentioned above respecting "Darius the Mede." We now go on to a class of arguments, which, even more obstinately than those based upon history, refuse to lend themselves to theological prepossession. From the Hebrew of the book of Daniel no important inference as to its date can safely be drawn. It is true, Aramaisms abound, but this feature is common to all the later books of the Old Testament. Nor, in spite of the assertions of controversial writers on both sides, can any argument be based on the fact (strange as it seems) that the book of Daniel is written in two languages or dialects, i. 1-ii. 4a and viii.-xii, being in Hebrew, and ii. 4b-vii. 28 in Aramaic (miscalled Chaldee). The philological data (which will be found collected in Dr. Pusey's Daniel the Prophet, pp. lxvii. 44-57) have been most variously interpreted. Hitzig inferred that the Aramaic of Daniel was later than that of Ezra; Hengstenberg, Dr. Pusey, and especially the late Professor McGill, that Ezra's was later than Daniel's. But the truth seems to be that the evidence is insufficient to determine the question. The Massorites aimed at making the language of the Old Testament (Aramaic as well as Hebrew) uniform, though they did not carry out their plan thoroughly, and allowed not a few vestiges of older stages of the language to remain. It is impossible therefore to decide a cathedra that the later forms in Daniel or Ezra have not arisen from this levelling procedure of the Jewish critics. A similar controversy has arisen as to the relation of the Aramaic of the Old Testament to that of the Targums. Dr. Pusey and others maintain that they are separated by a wide interval of time; but recent researches have shown that the official Targum, or Aramaic translation, of the Pentateuch, the earlier historical books, and the prophets, was thrown into its present form at Babylon on the basis of a work composed in Palestine. Now the Aramaic of Babylon was different from that of Palestine; still, on the whole, as Nöldeke rightly says, the Aramaic of the official Targum is only a rather later development of the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra, which is therefore presumably Pales tinian. It does not, however, follow that the whole book was written in Palestine. The correct translation of Dan. ii. 4 seems to be "And the Chaldeans spoke unto the king (Aramaic);" i.e., that which follows from this point to the end of chap. vii. is extracted from an Aramaie document. Now, considering the careless treatment extended to the book of Daniel (see the Septuagint version of it), it is quite possible, as M. Lenormant suggests, that the original Hebrew of Dan. ii. 46-vii. 28 was lost, and its place supplied by the Aramaic translation. There is an exact parallel (not mentioned by M. Lenormant) in Jer. x. 11, which appears only to exist in an Aramaic version. The remaining linguistic evidence is supplied by cer tain Persian and Greek words in the book of Daniel. This will retain its importance, even if we adopt M. Lenor mant's theory of a substituted Aramaic translation, for a translator writing in a kindred dialect would be tolerably precise in reproducing technical terms, at any rate would not succeed in expunging all traces of the original. (1) The book contains (see Mr. Fuller's second excursus) at least nine words which are referred, in most cases with cer tainty, to a Persian origin. It must be remembered that no Persian words occur in Daniel's supposed contemporary -Ezekiel, nor even in Haggai, Zechariah, and Malach There are some, it is true, in Ezra and in Esther. but those 709 books were written long after the beginning of the Persian | xiv. 14, 20), and the Babylonian Abydenus has a legend rule. (2) The three Greek words in Daniel admitted by distantly resembling Dan. iv. But even if we admit this Delitzsch are all names of musical instruments-Kilapis, conjecture, the historical setting, the moral purpose, and Þæλтýpiov, ovμowvia. The reproduction is (philologically) the skill in presentation are all his own, and reflect dimly so exact that they must have been taken from the lips of a Greek, and this, according to M. Lenormant's presentation Pentateuchal history. of the facts, was impossible before the age of the Seleucidæ, as it may be the spirit and the power of the writers of the since the commercial intercourse between Greece and Babylonia was not "considerable nor consecutive enough" to admit of it at an earlier period. The third class of facts to be reckoned with are the internal difficulties in the admission of the authorship of Daniel. Putting aside those which raise questions of theology, we may mention the two following as specimens:(a) In ii. 25 Arioch speaks of Daniel as merely "one of the captives of Judah," and as personally unknown to the king. This seems inconsistent with chap. i., and consequently unlikely to have been written by Daniel. (b) No subsequent mention is made of the offices to which Daniel and his three friends, according to ii. 48, were promoted, not even in the narrative in chap. iii. The former of these seems the more important. An exact parallel occurs in 1 Sam. xvii. 55-6, where Saul professes himself entirely unacquainted with David, and this after the latter had been constantly playing the harp before him (chap. xvi. 23). Now, critics of such opposite opinions as Thenius and Nägelsbach agree that the solution of the difficulty in 1 Sam. is the reference of the respective passages to different documents, It has been urged, therefore, that the same theory will at once account for the inconsistencies in Daniel, and that the narratives at any rate were most likely written at different times, possibly by different authors, and certainly not by Daniel himself (as Mr. Russell Martineau has cogently shown). These various narratives would naturally be connected by an editor, and to this editor we may be indebted for the second of the "undesigned coincidences" referred to above as confirming the supposition of a mistake as to the date and the acts of Darius the Mede; for the name of Cyrus only occurs in three passages (i. 21; vi. 28; x. 1), and may have been inserted by the editor (who knew that Cyrus, not Darius, conquered Babylon) with the object of bringing the book into somewhat closer accordance with profane history. It is gratifying to state that the fundamental principle of this theory has been conceded by such orthodox writers as Mr. Fuller and M. Lenormant. "In its present form," says the former "the book possesses peculiarities of an internal character which seem to suggest a certain extraneous aid perfectly compatible with the recognition of its unity and authority" (Speaker's Commentary, vi. 229). M. Lenormant's view has already been mentioned; we need only add that he puts down all the errors of the narrative chapters in Daniel to the copyists or translators, and that he finds a truthfulness of Babylonian coloring piercing through the injuries of time, which can only be accounted for by ascribing the original work to the prophet Daniel. Colder and more critical students will naturally go further. They will not perhaps deny the unity of authorship. The inconsistencies of the narratives are at most a proof of their separate origin; and the 12th chapter of Enoch (an apocalyptic work like Daniel) supplies a parallel which has been hitherto overlooked to the transition from the third person to the first in Dan. vii. 1, 28. There is, further, a general similarity of style between the Hebrew and the Aramaic portions, and (especially) a marked parallelism of contents between chaps. vii. and ii., which is not favorable to a diversity of authorship. But there is a growing feeling that the narratives in the book before us could not have been the work of a resident in Babylon. There may, it is allowed, be an element of historical tradition in them; but, so, we have not at present the means of detecting it. The narratives, however, have quite sufficient merit regarded from the point of view of edification. If we only place ourselves in the position of the later Jews, we shall perhaps faintly realize the stirring effect they must have produced. We shall then no longer be surprised at the improbability of many of the details, which has given rise to so much unnecessary ridicule. only feeling, when we consider the author's comparative Admiration will be our success in reproducing a distant past. It is possible, no doubt, that he derived some part of these narratives from Jewish or Babylonian popular stories, for we find a Daniel already celebrated for his wisdom in Ezekiel (xxviii. 3, cf. if and inquire which is the earliest period to which the nar rative of Daniel can apply? The third chapter of the We may now proceed to the next stage in the argument, kind of bag-pipe; A. V., wrongly "dulcimer"), which, as book suggests an answer. There (see ver. 5) we meet with a Greek musical instrument called symphonia (probably a we learn from Polybius (Athen., x. 52), was a special favorpersecutor of the Jews. If, therefore, the period of this ite of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, the notorious king (175-164 B.C.) suits the remainder of the work, the must, however, be made. If any historical evidence should clue to the book of Daniel has been found. One reserve be forthcoming in favor of M. Lenormant's view stated above,-if, in a word, an earlier recension of the book of Daniel should be discovered,-it will become necessary to revise or abandon the foregoing argument. greatly increased by the necessity of making some assumpThe difficulty of the second part of Daniel (vii.-xii.) is tions with a view to its interpretation. Those of one class of critics are based upon a tradition, reaching back as far the statements of the book of Daniel are literally true; as the Christian era (see Josephus, Antiq., x. 11, 7), that study of the undisputed prophecies on the one hand and those of another class upon the theory, resulting from the of the apocalyptic literature on the other, that the promsence of a moral, hortatory element, are the distinguishing inence of minute circumstantial prediction, and the abmarks of an artificial, apocalyptic imitation of prophecy. (See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.) The latter class of critics hold that the "analogy of prophecy" is an exegetical argument equal in importance to that of the "analogy of faith" in dogmatics. The only attempt to mediate between the two positions is that of Zöckler, who, while believing that the book as a whole is the work of Daniel, is of opinion that the most circumstantial passage (xi. 5-39) has been in some parts interpolated by a contemporary of Antiochus Epiphanes. He thus unintentionally supplements the theory as to the narrative-chapters held by M. Lenormant. The second part of Daniel is occupied with a series of visions and angelic communications, chiefly descriptive of the stages through which the empire of the world had passed, or was about to pass, between Nebuchadnezzar and the latter days. Of these visions, the last (x.-xii.) is the most important. In the form of prediction, the angel who discourses with Daniel communicates the history of the kingdoms to which Palestine was attached from the time of Cyrus to that of Antiochus Epiphanes. This is followed by a description of the deliverance and glorification of the Israelites in the Messianic period (using the word in a wide sense), which is here represented as immediately supervening on the Syrian persecution. The second vision (chap. viii.) has an equally clear reference to Antiochus Epiphanes (the "little horn"). What the writer can have meant by "2300 evening-mornings" is confessedly most obscure; and the statement that the "shameless king" (Antiochus, ver. 23) should fall by a sudden divine interposition (ver. 25, cf. Job xxxiv. 20) is one of those inconsistencies with profane history which mark the second as well as the first part of Daniel. To the second "beast" of the second vision corresponds, by its description, the fourth beast of the first (chap. vii.); consequently both signify the Greek empire of Alexander and his successors. the prevalent view; it is that of Delitzsch and Dr. Westcott, no less than of Ewald and Bleek, but is opposed by This is now becoming the "traditional" theory still upheld by Dr. Pusey, which makes the fourth empire that of Rome. Of the dream of the image in chap. ii., the interpretation of which depends The 9th chapter is as instructive as it is difficult. At the on that of chap. vii., our limits preclude us from speaking. very outset it suggests a very late origin for the book by the way in which the prophets are looked back upon (ver. described in ver. 2 seems to many to point to a time when 6, 10); and the minute study of the works of the prophets prophetic inspiration had ceased, and the prophetic writ ings (here called "the books") were already collected. Meditating, like one of the later scribes, over the letter of Scripture, Daniel (or the writer who assumed his name) came to the conclusion that the seventy years appointed by Jeremiah for "the desolations of Jerusalem" must have meant seventy weeks of years, i. e., 490 years. The point from which and to which these "weeks" are to be reckoned is, however, keenly debated. Hengstenberg, following most of the fathers, takes the terminus a quo to be the 20th year of Artaxerxes (445 B. C.), and the terminus ad quem the public appearance of Christ. Dr. Pusey prefers for the one the return of Ezra to Jerusalem, in 457 B. C., and for the other the martyrdom of St. Stephen, 33 A. D. Dr. Kuenen reckons the seventy weeks from the date of Jeremiah's prediction of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (604 B. C.) to the murder of the high priest Onias III. (170 B. C.). It is true that this does not produce exactly the required number of years, but we ought not, contends Dr. Kuenen, to assume that the author was a perfect master of chronology. We need not, however, dwell further on this "perplexed subject," as it is more than probable that the Hebrew text is unsound. Our view of the second part of the book must be determined by the distinct, not by the obscure, passages. These show that the real centre of the thoughts of the author is Antiochus Epiphanes, and exonerate those critics from the charge of wilfulness, who suppose the book to have been written in the reign of that king. For why, these critics ask, should one of the Jewish exiles at Babylon single out the episode of Antiochus in preference to the far more important crisis of the struggle with Rome? And how is it that the revelation of future events ceases to be in accordance with history precisely when we come to the passage (xi. 40-45) which relates to the closing years of the Syrian king? It would be unjust, however, to writers of the school of Dr. Kuenen to slur over the fact that they can offer plausible historical proofs, unconnected with exegesis, which appear to favor a late date for the book of Daniel. Just as in reviewing the first part of the book we found philological evidence of a post-Babylonian origin, so in the second part there are (according to this school) references to beliefs confessedly post-Babylonian. The doctrine of angels in Daniel is developed to a degree which, it is said, implies a long continuance of Persian influences. In Zechariah we see this doctrine in a less advanced stage. Even the "accuser" angel in Zechariah is still an appellative ("the Satan"), whereas the book of Daniel not only contains a full system of "first princes" or angels, to whom the government of the world is intrusted, but gives names to two of them (Michael and Gabriel), which, as Dr. Kohut has shown, correspond to those of the two Persian archangels, Vohumanô and Çraosho. The book of Daniel, too, contains the first distinct prediction of a resurrection of the dead (see Cheyne's Book of Isaiah Chronologically Arranged, p. 130, par. 5), and the researches of Windischmann, Hang, and Spiegel appear to have shown that this is a genuine Zoroastrian doctrine, traces of it being found in the earliest portions of the Avesta. Now, it is both natural and right to look with suspicion on theories of the importation of foreign ideas among the Old Testament writers, for experience shows that they will rarely stand a critical examination. Still the evidence for a Persian origin (or share in the origin) of the doctrine of the resurrection is so strong as to unite the suffrages of the most opposite writers. Mr. Fuller, it is true, has tried to make Babylonian influences equally plausible in the development of this doctrine. But his authority, M. Lenormant, candidly admits that the Babylonian literature only contains the first germ" of the doctrine which in Daniel has attained an advanced degree of development (La Magie chez les Chaldéens, pp. 155–6). We have thus endeavored to give the leading facts on which the criticism and interpretation of this most interesting book depend. In the present phase of the controversy, two positions only would appear to be philologically tenable. One is that so confidently maintained by M. Lenormant, the eminent Assyriologue, for the first part, and to some extent by Dr. Zöckler for the second part, which consists in assuming that the original book of Daniel has been interpolated by later hands. The other, that the work is still mainly in the form in which it was written, that its date is in the Maccabean period, and that, as in the case of Denteronomy (according to most critics) in earlier times, and the apocalyptic writings which preceded and followed the rise of Christianity, the author, in the service of truth, assumed a name which would more than his own command the respect of his countrymen. "Such a writer," thought the late Professor Weir, "however much we may disapprove his procedure, yet, regarding him in the light of his age, we cannot so unhesitatingly condemn. It was not unnatural that the cessation of the voices of the old prophets should have been followed by what may be described as echoes waked up from time to time, and chiefly at critical periods of the national history, in the breasts of sympathizing and enthusiastic disciples" (Academy, vol. i. p. 70). From this point of view, we may perhaps say that the book of Daniel is in part an attempted echo of Jeremiah (see Dan. ix. 2). Still if we accept this as the more natural alternative, we must not suppose that every detail in the narratives of the first part was planned with reference to the Syrian persecution,-Nebuchadnezzar is not a mere double of Antiochus. There is a parallelism, it is true, between the circumstances of the persecuted Jews and the pious friends at Babylon, but it must not be pressed too far. Nor need we suppose that the book was circulated at once as a whole or among all classes of the Jews. The two parts of the work are separable, and the former part displays perhaps too much antiquarian research to be perfectly suitable for general circulation. The "wise men," who formerly sat in the gate," had withdrawn since the time of the Captivity to the student's chamber; and in the author of Daniel we behold the prototype of the scholar-martyrs and confessors of the Christian church. Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, 1850; Delitzsch, article "Daniel" in Among the more important modern works on Daniel are Herzog's Real-Encyclopädie, Bd. iii., 1855; Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische Apokalyptik, 1857; Zündel, Kritische Untersuchungen, etc., 1861; Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, 2d ed., 1868; Perowne, review of Pusey, in Contemporary Review, vol. i.; R. Martineau, "Daniel," in Theological Review, 1865; Zöckler, "Der Prophet Daniel," in Lange's Bibelwerk, 1870; Lenormant, La divination, etc., chez les Chaldéens, (pp. 169-227), 1875; Fuller, “Commentary on Daniel" in Speaker's Commentary, vol. vi., 1876; Kuenen, The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, 1877. (T. K. C.) DANIEL, GABRIEL (1649–1728), a French Jesuit his torian, was born at Rouen in 1649. He was educated by the Jesuits, entered the order at the age of eighteen, and became superior at Paris. He is best known by his Histoire de France depuis l'établissement de la Monarchie Francaise, which appeared first in 1713, and has since been published in 1758 and in 1755–60, the last edition with notes by P. Griffet. Daniel published an abridgment in 1728; and another abridgment was published by Dorival in 1751. Though full of prejudices, which affect his accuracy, Daniel had the advantage of consulting valuable original sources, and his book has been praised by such authorities as Henri Martin and Thierry. Daniel also wrote a by no means successful reply to Pascal's Provincial Letters, entitled Entretiens de Cléanthe et d'Eudoxe sur les Lettres Provinciales; a Histoire de la Milice française depuis l'établissement de la monarchie française jusqu'à la în de la règne de Louis le Grand (1721); two treatises on the Cartesian theory as to the intelligence of the lower animals, and other works. DANIEL, SAMUEL (1562–1819), an English poet and historian, was the son of a music-master, and was born near Taunton, in Somersetshire, in 1562. In 1579 he was admitted a commoner of Magdalen College, Oxford, where he remained for about three years, and then gave himself up to the unrestrained study of poetry and philosophy. He succeeded in being appointed tutor to Anne Clifford, daughter of the earl of Northumberland, and thus commenced a life of not ignoble dependence on several of the great houses of that day. He was first encouraged and, if we may believe him, taught in verse, by the famous conntess of Pembroke, whose honor he was never weary of proclaiming. His first known work, a translation of Paulus Jovius, to which some original matter is appended, was printed in 1585. His first known volume of verse is dated 1592; it contains the cycle of sonnets to Delia and the romance called The Complaint of Rosamond. It has been plausibly conjectured that an earlier edition of the latter at one time existed; if so, it seems to be lost beyond al hope. Several editions of the sonnets appeared in 1592, and they were very frequently reprinted during Daniel's lifetime. We learn by internal evidence that Delia lived on the banks of Shakespeare's river, the Avon, and that the sonnets to her were inspired by her memory when the reformer in verse, and the introducer of several valuable novelties. It may be broadly said of his style that it is full, easy, and stately, without being very animated or splendid. It attains a high average of general excellence, and is content with level flights. As a gnomic writer Daniel ap proaches Chapman, but is far more musical and coherent. He is wanting in fire and passion, but he is pre-eminent in scholarly grace and tender, mournful reverie. (E. W. G.) DANIELL, JOHN FREDERICK (1790-1845), an eminent chemist and physicist, was born in London on the 12th March, 1790. From his father, a barrister, he received an excellent classical education; but having from his early years displayed a preference for natural science, he entered a sugar refinery, where he soon effected important improvements in the process. He studied chemistry under Professor Brande, in conjunction with whom he started in 1816 the journal which, shortly after its commencement, became favorably known to scientific men as the Quarterly Journal of Science and Art. To this he contributed numerous articles on chemistry and meteorology, including, under the latter head, an interesting account of the ingenious and delicate dew-point hygrometer which is known by his name. In 1823 he collected and published his Meteorological Essays, which excited much interest as one of the first attempts to explain the phenomena of the weather on the broad and sure basis of physical science. In 1824 he published an Essay on Artificial Climate considered in its Applications to Horticulture, which was the means of effecting a radical change in the treatment of tropical plants in colder regions, by showing the necessity of a humid atmosphere in hothouses. As managing director of the Continental Gas Company he interested himself in the manufacture of gas for illuminating purposes, and invented a method of extracting it from resin, which was in practical use for a time. He was one of the founders of the Society for Promoting Useful Knowledge, for which he wrote a treatise on chemistry. In 1831 he was appointed first professor of chemistry in the newly founded King's College, London. During the succeeding years he was engaged in a series of investigations on heat and electricity, which were of great value in their practical applications. For his register pyrometer, devised to measure high temperatures, he was awarded in 1832 the Rumford medal of the Royal Society. Soon afterwards he received the Copley medal for his invention of the sulphate of copper or constant battery, which, as a substitute for Wollaston's, effected an immense improvement in the apparatus of voltaic electricity. The Royal medal, the only other honor of the kind in the gift of the society, was bestowed upon him in 1842. In 1839 appeared his Introduction to the Study of Chemical Philosophy, which dealt very ably with the theory of molecular forces. Four years later the honorary degree of D. C. L. was conferred upon him by the University of Oxford. He had received in 1839 another honor of a different kind in being chosen foreign secretary of the Royal Society. He died suddenly of apoplexy while attending a meeting of the council of the society on the 13th March, 1845. poet was in Italy. To an edition of Delia and Rosamond, in 1594, was added the tragedy of Cleopatra, a severe study in the manner of the ancients, in alternately rhyming heroic_verse, diversified by stiff choral interludes. The First Four Books of the Civil Wars, an historical poem in ottava rima, appeared in 1595. The bibliography of Daniel's works is attended with great difficulty, but as far as is known it was not until 1599 that there was published a volume entitled Poetical Essays, which contained, besides the "Civil Wars," "Musophilus," and "A letter from Octavia to Marcus Antonius," poems in Daniel's finest and most mature manner. On the death of Spenser, in the same year, Daniel received the somewhat vague | office of poet-laureate, which he seems, however, to have shortly resigned in favor of Ben Jonson. In 1601 he published his Epistles to Great Personages in verse. Whether it was on this occasion is not known, but about this time, and at the recommendation of his brother-in-law John Florio, he was taken into favor at court, and published, in 1602,1a Panegyric offered to the King at Burleigh Harrington in Rutlandshire, written in ottava rima, a second edition of which, in 1603, contained an elegant prose essay called A Defence of Rime, as against the classic measures proposed by Webbe and Gosson. In 1603, moreover, Daniel was appointed Master of the Queen's Revels. In this capacity he brought out a series of masques and pastoral tragicomedies, of which were printed A Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, in 1604; The Queen's Arcadia, in 1606; and Hymen's Triumph, in 1615. Meanwhile had appeared, in | 1605, Certain short poems, with the tragedy of Philotas, which latter was a study in the same style as Cleopatra. In 1604 the Civil Wars had been completed in eight books. In 1612 Daniel published a prose History of England, from the earliest times down to the end of the reign of Edward III. This work was afterwards continued, and published towards the close of Daniel's life, without a date. He was made a gentleman-extraordinary and groom of the chamber to Queen Anne, sinecure offices which offered no hindrance to an active literary career. He was now acknowledged as one of the first writers of the time. Shakespeare, Selden, and Chapman are named among the few intimates who were permitted to intrude upon the seclusion of a gardenhouse in Old Street, St. Luke's, where, Fuller tells us, he would "lie hid for some months together, the more retiredly to enjoy the company of the Muses, and then would appear in public to converse with his friends." Late in life Daniel threw up his titular posts at court and retired to a farm-house, which he rented at Beckington, in his native county of Somerset, where he died on the 14th of October, 1619. The poetical writings of Daniel are very numerous, and in spite of the eulogies of all the best critics, they have never yet been collected or reprinted. This is the more singular since, during the last century, when so little Elizabethan literature was read, Daniel retained his poetical prestige. In later times Coleridge, Charles Lamb, and others have expended some of their most genial criticisms on this poet. Of his multifarious works the sonnets are now, perhaps, most read. As second in date to none but Sidney's, they possess a special interest; they mark the first legalization of the great error of our sonneteers, in closing with a couplet, but they have a grace and tenderness all their own. Of a higher order is The Complaint of Rosamond, a soliloquy in which the ghost of the murdered woman appears and bewails her fate in stanzas of exquisite THOMAS DANIELL (1749-1840), to whom the others were pathos. Among the Epistles to Distinguished Persons will indebted for everything, was a man of versatile ability and be found some of Daniel's noblest stanzas and most enormous energy. He was the maker of his own fortune, polished verse. The epistle to the countess of Bedford is having been born at the Chertsey Inn, kept by his father, remarkable among these as being composed in genuine in 1749, and apprenticed to an heraldic painter, a trade terza rima, till then not used in English. Daniel was par- then dying out, like that of stay-maker or perukier at a later ticularly fond of a four-lined stanza of solemn alternately time. However profitable it had been, probably Daniell rhyming iambics, a form of verse distinctly misplaced in would not have adhered to it, as he was animated, at a time his dramas. These, inspired it would seem by like when the representation of natural scenery under atmoattempts of the countess of Pembroke's, are hard and frigid; spheric conditions of effect was merely struggling into his pastorals are far more pleasing; and Hymen's Triumph existence, with a love of the romantic and beautiful in is perhaps the best of all his dramatic writings. In elegiac architecture and nature. The sentimental affectation for verse he always excelled, but most of all in his touching landscape, so cleverly satirized by Lord Macaulay, did not address To the Angel Spirit of the Most Excellent Sir Philip indeed influence him; his bias was towards archæology Sydney. We must not neglect to quote Musophilus among and botany, and led him at last to India. Up to 1784 he the most characteristic writings of Daniel. It is a general painted topographical subjects and flower pieces. By this defence of learning, and in particular of poetic learning, time his two nephews had come under his influence, the addressed to Fulk Greville, and written, with much senten- youngest being apprenticed to Medland the landscape entious melody, in a sort of terza rima or, more properly, ot- graver, and the elder, William, was under his own care. Lava rima with the couplet omitted. Daniel was a great In this year (1784) he embarked for India accompanied by [On his way to London to be crowned, the first time James I. set foot in England, he was at Cecil's place in Rutlandshire May 1, 1603, which is the probable date of the Panegyric.—AM. ED.] DANIELL, THOMAS, WILLIAM, and SAMUEL. This family of landscape painters forms a group which has left one record, so to speak, in our annals of art, not by their pictures exactly, but by the three having been all travellers in the East, and publishing, by means of engraving, works illustrating the scenery of the countries they visited. the boy, and found at Calcutta ample encouragement. Here he remained ten years, and on returning to London ne published his largest work, Oriental Scenery, in six large volumes, not completed till 1808. From 1795 till 1828 he continued to exhibit Eastern subjects, temples, jungle-hunts, etc., and at the same time continued the publication of illustrated works. These are- Views of Calcutta; Oriental Scenery, 144 plates; Views in Egypt; Excavations at Ellora; Picturesque Voyage to China. These were for the most part executed by an engraving process now almost forgotten, called aquatint, and, although they do not show the accuracy of detail now understood, are valuable authorities. He was made Royal Academician in 1799, fellow of the Royal Society about the same time, and at different times member of several minor societies. His nephews both died before him; his Indian period had made him independent, and he lived a bachelor life in much respect at Kensington till the age of ninety-one, dying 19th March, WILLIAM DANIELL (1769-1837), nephew of Thomas, was born 1769, and was therefore fourteen when he accompanied his uncle to India. His own publications, engraved in aquatint, were- -Voyage to India; Zoography; Animated Nature; Views of London; Views of Bootan, a work prepared from his uncle's sketches; and a Voyage Round Great Britain, which occupied him several years. The British Institution made him an honorary award of £100 for a Battle of Trafalgar, and he was elected R. A in 1822. He turned to panorama painting before his death, beginning in 1832 with Madras, the picture being enlivened by the Hindu mode of taming wild elephants. He died 16th August, 1837. 1840. SAMUEL DANIELL, William's younger brother, born 1775, was brought up as an engraver, and first appears as an exhibitor in 1792. A few years later he went to the Cape and travelled into the interior of Africa, with his sketching materials in his haversack. The drawings he made there were published, after his return, in his African Scenery. He did not rest long at home, but left for Ceylon in 1806, where he spent the remaining years of his life, publishing The Scenery, Animals, and Natives of Ceylon. Camping out and malaria from the swamps cut him off after a few days' illness in December, 1811. DANNECKER, JOHANN HEINRICH VON (1758-1841), one of the best German sculptors. He was born at Stuttgart, where his father was employed in the stables of the duke of Würtemberg, 15th October, 1758. The boy was entered in the military school at the age of thirteen, and continued there two years, when, his bias and his talent having manifested themselves, he was allowed to take his own way, although there had been some idea of making him a dancer. Önce freed from his juvenile difficulties his success was pretty secure, and we find him at once associating with the young sculptors Scheffauer and Le Jeune, the painters Guibal and Harper, and also with Schiller, and the much-admired musician Zumsteeg. His busts of some of these are good; that of Schiller is well known. In his eighteenth year he carried off the prize at the Concours with his model of Milo of Crotona, the strong man who died by having his hand caught in the rent stump of a tree, a favorite subject with young sculptors. On this the duke made him sculptor to the palace (1780), and for some time he was employed on child-angels and caryatides for the decoration of the reception rooms. This work did not please him very much, and in 1783, in his twenty-fourth year, he left for Paris with Scheffauer, and placed himself under Pajou for a time. His Mars, a sitting figure sent home to Stuttgart, marks this period; and we next find him, still travelling with his friend, at Rome in 1785, where he settled down to work hard for five years, during which his position in the future art history of his native land was securely made. Goethe and Herder were then in Rome and became his friends, as well as Canova, who was the hero of the day, and who had undoubtedly a great authoritative influence on his style. His marble statues of Ceres and Bacchus were done at this time. These are now to be seen in the Residenz-schloss, at Stuttgart. While in Rome his study of the antique was very careful and intelligent, although Canova was so much admired by him, and on his return to Stuttgart, which he never afterwards quitted except for short trips to Paris, Vienna, and Zurich, the double influence of these opposite forces is apparent in his works. We may mention some of these. The first was a Girl Lamenting her Dead Bird, which pretty light motive was much admired. Afterwards, Sappho, in marble for the Lustschloss, and two Offering-bearers for the Jagdschloss; Hector, now in the museum, not in marble; the Complaint of Ceres, from Schiller's poem; a statue of Christ, worthy of mention for its nobility, which has been skilfully engraved by Amsler; Psyche; Kneeling Water Nymph; Love, a favorite he had to repeat. These stock subjects with sculptors had freshness of treatment and the Ariadne, done a little later, especially had a charm of novelty which has made it a European favorite in a reduced size. It is perhaps the contrast between the delicacy of the female human form and the subdued rude force of the panther she rides that attracts our admiration; but it is probable that this group, like Canova's Graces, will always retain its popularity. It was repeated for the banker Von Bethman in Frankfort, where it now appears the ornament of the Platz. Many of the illustrious men of the time were modelled by him. The original marble of Schiller is now at Weimar; after the poet's death it was again modelled in colossal size. Lavater, Metternich, Countess Stephanie of Baden, General Benkendorf, and others are much prized. Dannecker was director of the Gallery of Stuttgart, and received many academic and other distinctions. So far his life had been prosperous, but as the evening drew on his mind became troubled and at last obscured. His health had suffered while working very closely on a large monumental statue, and long before his final year he was altogether prostrated. During this sad period he rallied, but his memory and power of observation faded again, and his death was long expected. This took place at last in 1841, in his eighty-third year. DANTE. Dante (or Durante) Alighieri (1265- Family 1321) was born at Florence about the middle of and birth May, 1265. He was descended from an ancient family, but not one of the highest rank. His biographers have attempted on very slight grounds to deduce his origin from the Frangipani, one of the oldest senatorial families of Rome. We can affirm with greater certainty that he was connected with the Elisei who took part in the building of Florence under Charles the Great. Dante himself does not, with the exception of a few obscure and scattered allusions, carry his ancestry beyond the warrior Cacciaguida, whom he met in the sphere of Mars (Par. xv. 87, foll.). Cacciaguida there tells his descendant that he was born in the year 1106, that he married an Aldighieri from the valley of the Po, that he had two brothers, Moronte and Eliseo, and that he accompanied the Emperor Conrad III. upon his crusade into the Holy Land, where he died among the infidels. From Eliseo was descended the branch of the Elisei; from Aldighiero, son of Cacciaguida, the branch of the Alighieri. Bellincione, son of Aldighiero, was the grandfather of Dante. His father was a second Aldighiero, a lawyer of some reputation. By his first wife, Lapa di Chiarissimo Cialuffi, this Aldighiero had a son Francesco; by his second, Donna Bella, whose family name is not known, Dante and a daughter. Thus the family of Dante held a most respectable position among the citizens of his beloved city; but had it been reckoned in the very first rank they could not have remained in Florence after the defeat of the Guelfs at Montaperti in 1260. It is clear, however, that Dante's mother at least did so remain, for Dante was born in Florence in 1265. The heads of the Guelf party did not return till 1267. Education. Dante was born under the sign of the Twins, "the glorious stars pregnant with virtue, to whom he owes his genius such as it is." Astrologers considered this constellation as favorable to literature and science, and Brunetto Latini, his instructor, tells him in the Inferno (xv. 25, foll.) that, if he follows its guidance, he cannot fail to reach the harbor of fame. Boccaccio relates that before his birth his mother dreamed that she lay under a very lofty laurel, growing in a green meadow, by a very clear fountain, when she felt the pangs of childbirth,—that her child, feeding on the berries which fell from the laurel, and on the waters of the fountain, in a very short time became a shepherd, and attempted to reach the leaves of the laurel, the fruit of which had nurtured him,-that, trying to ob tain them he fell, and rose up, no longer a man, but in the guise of a peacock. We know little of Dante's boyhood except that he was a hard student and a pupil of Brunetto Latini. Boccaccio tells us that he became very familiar with Virgil, Horace, Ovid, and Statius, and all other famous |