Bibliography.—J. Brun-Durand,Dictionnaire topographique du département de la Drôme(Paris, 1891); Jules Chevalier,Essai historique sur l’église et la ville de Die, Montélimar and Valence (2 vols., 1888 and 1896); W. A. B. Coolidge, H. Duhamel and Félix Perrin,Climbers’ Guide to the Central Alps of the Dauphiny(a revision of a French work by the same, issued at Grenoble in 1887), London, 1892 (new ed. 1905); J. J. Guiffrey,Histoire de la réunion du Dauphiné à la France(Paris, 1868); Joanne,Dauphiné(Paris, 1905); A. Prudhomme,Histoire de Grenoble(Grenoble, 1888);Ib., “De l’origine des mots ‘Dauphin’ et Dauphiné” (article in vol. liv. (1893) of theBibliothèque de l’École des Chartes); A. Rochas,Biographie du Dauphiné(2 vols., Paris, 1856); J. Roman,Dictionnaire topographique(Paris, 1884);Tableau historique(Paris, 2 vols., 1887 and 1890); andRépertoire archéologique du département des Hautes-Alpes(Paris, 1888); J. Roman,Histoire de la ville de Gap(Gap, 1892); A. De Terrebasse,Notice sur les Dauphins de Viennois(Vienne, 1875); J. M. De Valbonnais,Histoire de Dauphiné(2 vols., Geneva, 1722); J. A. Félix Faure,Les Assemblées de Vizille et de Romans, 1788 (Paris, 1887); O. Chenavas,La Révolution de 1788 en Dauphiné(Grenoble, 1888); C. Lory,Description géologique du Dauphiné(Paris, 1860).
Bibliography.—J. Brun-Durand,Dictionnaire topographique du département de la Drôme(Paris, 1891); Jules Chevalier,Essai historique sur l’église et la ville de Die, Montélimar and Valence (2 vols., 1888 and 1896); W. A. B. Coolidge, H. Duhamel and Félix Perrin,Climbers’ Guide to the Central Alps of the Dauphiny(a revision of a French work by the same, issued at Grenoble in 1887), London, 1892 (new ed. 1905); J. J. Guiffrey,Histoire de la réunion du Dauphiné à la France(Paris, 1868); Joanne,Dauphiné(Paris, 1905); A. Prudhomme,Histoire de Grenoble(Grenoble, 1888);Ib., “De l’origine des mots ‘Dauphin’ et Dauphiné” (article in vol. liv. (1893) of theBibliothèque de l’École des Chartes); A. Rochas,Biographie du Dauphiné(2 vols., Paris, 1856); J. Roman,Dictionnaire topographique(Paris, 1884);Tableau historique(Paris, 2 vols., 1887 and 1890); andRépertoire archéologique du département des Hautes-Alpes(Paris, 1888); J. Roman,Histoire de la ville de Gap(Gap, 1892); A. De Terrebasse,Notice sur les Dauphins de Viennois(Vienne, 1875); J. M. De Valbonnais,Histoire de Dauphiné(2 vols., Geneva, 1722); J. A. Félix Faure,Les Assemblées de Vizille et de Romans, 1788 (Paris, 1887); O. Chenavas,La Révolution de 1788 en Dauphiné(Grenoble, 1888); C. Lory,Description géologique du Dauphiné(Paris, 1860).
(W. A. B. C.)
DAURAT(orDorat),JEAN(in Lat.Auratus), (1508-1588), French poet and scholar, and member of the Pléiade, was born at Limoges in 1508. His name was originally Dinemandy. He belonged to a noble family, and, after studying at the college of Limoges, came up to Paris to be presented to Francis I., who made him tutor to his pages. He rapidly gained an immense reputation as a classical scholar. As a private tutor in the house of Lazare de Baïf, he had J. A. de Baïf for his pupil. His son, Louis, showed great precocity, and at the age of ten translated into French verse one of his father’s Latin pieces; his poems were published with his father’s. Jean Daurat became the director of the Collège de Coqueret, where he had among his pupils, besides Baïf, Ronsard, Remy, Belleau and Pontus de Tyard. Joachim du Bellay was added by Ronsard to this group; and these five young poets, under the direction of Daurat, formed a society for the reformation of the French language and literature. They increased their number to seven by the initiation of the dramatist Étienne Jodelle, and thereupon they named themselves La Pléiade, in emulation of the seven Greek poets of Alexandria. The election of Daurat as their president proved the weight of his personal influence, and the value his pupils set on the learning to which he introduced them, but as a writer of French verse he is the least important of the seven. Meanwhile he collected around him a sort of Academy, and stimulated the students on all sides to a passionate study of Greek and Latin poetry. He himself wrote incessantly in both those languages, and was styled the Modern Pindar. His influence extended beyond the bounds of his own country, and he was famous as a scholar in England, Italy and Germany. In 1556 he was appointed professor of Greek at the Collège Royale, a post which he continued to hold until, in 1567, he resigned it in favour of his nephew, Nicolas Goulu. Charles IX. gave him the title ofpoeta regius. His flow of language was the wonder of his time; he is said to have composed more than 15,000 Greek and Latin verses. The best of these he published at Paris in 1586 asJ. Aurati Lemovicis poëtae et interpretis regii poëmata. He died at Paris on the 1st of November 1588, having survived all his illustrious pupils of the Pléiade, except Pontus de Tyard. He was a little, restless man, of untiring energy, rustic in manner and appearance. His unequalled personal influence over the most graceful minds of his age gives him an importance in the history of literature for which his own somewhat vapid writings do not fully account.
TheŒuvres poétiquesin the vernacular of Jean Daurat were edited (1875) with biographical notice and bibliography by Ch. Marty-Laveaux in hisPléiade française.
TheŒuvres poétiquesin the vernacular of Jean Daurat were edited (1875) with biographical notice and bibliography by Ch. Marty-Laveaux in hisPléiade française.
DAVENANT, CHARLES(1656-1714), English economist, eldest son of Sir William Davenant, the poet, was born in London, and educated at Cheam grammar school and Balliol College, Oxford, but left the university without taking a degree. At the age of nineteen he had composed a tragedy,Circe, which met with some success, but he soon turned his attention to law, and having taken the degree of LL.D., he became a member of Doctors’ Commons. He was member of parliament successively for St Ives, Cornwall, and for Great Bedwyn. He held the post of commissioner of excise from 1683 to 1689, and that of inspector-general of exports and imports from 1705 till his death in 1714. He was also secretary to the commission appointed to treat for the union with Scotland. As an economist, he must be classed as a strong supporter of the mercantile theory, and in his economic pamphlets—as distinct from his political writings—he takes up an eclectic position, recommending governmental restrictions on colonial commerce as strongly as he advocates freedom of exchange at home. Of his writings, a complete edition of which was published in London in 1771, the following are the more important:—An Essay on the East India Trade(1697);Two Discourses on the Public Revenues and Trade of England(1698);An Essay on the probable means of making the people gainers in the balance of Trade(1699);A Discourse on Grants and Resumptions and Essays on the Balance of Power(1701).
DAVENANT(orD’Avenant),SIR WILLIAM(1606-1668), English poet and dramatist, was baptized on the 3rd of March 1606; he was born at the Crown Inn, Oxford, of which his father, a wealthy vintner, was proprietor. It was stated that Shakespeare always stopped at this house in passing through the city of Oxford, and out of his known or rumoured admiration of the hostess, a very fine woman, there sprang a scandalous story which attributed Davenant’s paternity to Shakespeare, a legend which there is reason to believe Davenant himself encouraged,but which later criticism has cast aside as spurious. In 1621 the vintner was made mayor of Oxford, and in the same year his son left the grammar school of All Saints, where his master had been Edward Sylvester, and was entered an undergraduate of Lincoln College, Oxford. He did not stay at the university, however, long enough to take a degree, but was hurried away to appear at court as a page, in the retinue of the gorgeous duchess of Richmond. From her service he passed into that of Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke, in whose house he remained until the murder of that eminent man in 1628. This blow threw him upon the world, not altogether without private means, but greatly in need of a profitable employment.
He turned to the stage for subsistence, and in 1629 produced his first play, the tragedy ofAlbovine. It was not a very brilliant performance, but it pleased the town, and decided the poet to pursue a dramatic career. The next year saw the production at Blackfriars ofThe Cruel Brother, a tragedy, andThe Just Italian, a tragi-comedy. Inigo Jones, the court architect, for whom Ben Jonson had long supplied the words of masques and complimentary pieces, quarrelled with his great colleague in the year 1634, and applied to William Davenant for verses. The result wasThe Temple of Love, performed by the queen and her ladies at Whitehall on Shrove Tuesday, 1634, and printed in that year. Another masque,The Triumphs of the Prince D’Amour, followed in 1636. The poet returned to the legitimate drama by the publication of the tragi-comedy ofThe Platonic Lovers, and the famous comedy ofThe Wits, in 1636, the latter of which, however, had been licensed in 1633. The masque ofBritannica Triumphans(1637) brought him into some trouble, for it was suppressed as a punishment for its first performance having been arranged for a Sunday. By this time Davenant had, however, thoroughly ingratiated himself with the court; and on the death of Ben Jonson in 1637 he was rewarded with the office of poet-laureate, to the exclusion of Thomas May, who considered himself entitled to the honour. It was shortly after this event that Davenant collected his minor lyrical pieces in a volume entitledMadagascar and other Poems(1638); and in 1639 he became manager of the new theatre in Drury Lane. The civil war, however, put a check upon this prosperous career; and he was among the most active partisans of royalty through the whole of that struggle for supremacy.
As early as May 1642, Davenant was accused before the Long Parliament of being mainly concerned in a scheme to seduce the army to overthrow the Commons. He was accordingly apprehended at Faversham, and imprisoned for two months in London; he then attempted to escape to France, and succeeded in reaching Canterbury, where he was recaptured. Escaping a second time, he made good his way to the queen, with whom he remained in France until he volunteered to carry over to England some military stores for the army of his old friend the earl of Newcastle, by whom he was induced to enter the service as lieutenant-general of ordnance. He acquitted himself with so much bravery and skill that, after the siege of Gloucester, in 1643, he was knighted by the king. After the battle of Naseby he retired to Paris, where he became a Roman Catholic, and spent some months in the composition of his epic poem ofGondibert. In 1646 he was sent by the queen on a mission to Charles I., then at Newcastle, to advise him to “part with the church for his peace and security.” The king dismissed him with some sharpness, and Davenant returned to Paris, where he was the guest of Lord Jermyn. In 1650 he took the command of a colonizing expedition that set sail from France to Virginia, but was captured in the Channel by a parliamentary man-of-war, which took him back to the Isle of Wight. Imprisoned in Cowes castle until 1651, he tempered the discomfort and suspense of his condition by continuing the composition ofGondibert. He was sent up to the Tower to await his trial for high treason, but just as the storm was about to break over his head, all cleared away. It is believed that the personal intercession of Milton led to this result. Another account is that he was released by the desire of two aldermen of York, once his prisoners, whom he had allowed to escape. Davenant, released from prison, immediately publishedGondibert, the work on which his fame mainly rests, a chivalric epic in the four-line stanza which Sir John Davies had made popular by hisNosce teipsum, the influence of which is strongly marked in the philosophical passages ofGondibert. It is a cumbrous, dull production, but is relieved with a multitude of fine and felicitous passages, and lends itself most happily to quotation.
During the civil war one of his plays had been printed, the tragedy ofThe Unfortunate Lovers, in 1643. One of his best plays,Love and Honour, was published in 1649, but appears to have been acted long before. He found that there were many who desired him to recommence his theatrical career. Such a step, however, was absolutely forbidden by Puritan law. Davenant, therefore, by the help of some influential friends, obtained permission to open a sort of theatre at Rutland House, in Charterhouse Yard, where, on the 21st of May 1656, he began a series of representations, which he calledoperas, as an inoffensive term. This word was then first introduced into the English language. The opening piece was a kind of dialogue defending the drama in the abstract. This was followed by his ownSiege of Rhodes, printed the same year, which was performed with stage decorations and machinery of a kind hitherto quite unthought of in England. Two other innovations in its production were the introduction of recitative and the appearance of a woman, Mrs Coleman, on the stage. He continued until the Restoration to produce ephemeral works of this kind, only one of which,The Cruelty of the Spaniards in Peru, in 1658, was of sufficient literary merit to survive. In 1660 he had the infinite satisfaction of being able to preserve the life of that glorious poet who had, nine years before, saved his own from a not less imminent danger. The mutual relations of Milton and Davenant do honour to the generosity of two men who, sincerely opposed in politics, knew how to forget their personal anger in their common love of letters. In 1659 Davenant suffered a short imprisonment for complicity in Sir George Booth’s revolt. Under Charles II. Davenant flourished in the dramatic world; he opened a new theatre in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, which he called the Duke’s; and he introduced a luxury and polish into the theatrical life which it had never before known in England. Under his management, the great actors of the Restoration, Betterton and his coevals, took their peculiar French style and appearance; and the ancient simplicity of the English stage was completely buried under the tinsel of decoration and splendid scenery. Davenant brought out six new plays in the Duke’s Theatre,The Rivals(1668), an adaptation ofThe Two Noble Kinsmen, which Davenant never owned,The Man’s the Master(1669), comedies translated from Scarron,News from Plymouth,The Distresses,The Siege,The Fair Favourite, tragi-comedies, all of which were printed after his death, and only one of which survived their author on the stage. He died at his house in Lincoln’s Inn Fields on the night of the 7th of April 1668, and two days afterwards was buried in Poets’ Corner, Westminster Abbey, with the inscription “O rare Sir William Davenant!” In 1672 his writings were collected in folio. His last work had been to travesty Shakespeare’sTempestin company with Dryden.
The personal character, adventures and fame of Davenant, and more especially his position as a leading reformer, or rather debaser, of the stage, have always given him a prominence in the history of literature which his writings hardly justify. His plays are utterly unreadable, and his poems are usually stilted and unnatural. With Cowley he marks the process of transition from the poetry of the imagination to the poetry of the intelligence; but he had far less genius than Cowley, and his influence on English drama must be condemned as wholly deplorable.
(E. G.)
DAVENPORT, EDWARD LOOMIS(1816-1877), American actor, born in Boston, made his first appearance on the stage in Providence in support of Junius Brutus Booth. Afterwards he went to England, where he supported Mrs Anna Cora Mowatt (Ritchie) (1819-1870), Macready and others. In 1854 he was again in the United States, appearing in Shakespearian plays and in dramatizations of Dickens’s novels. As Bill Sykes he wasespecially successful, and his Sir Giles Overreach and Brutus were also greatly admired. He died at Canton, Pennsylvania, on the 1st of September 1877. In 1849 he had married Fanny Vining (Mrs Charles Gill) (d. 1891), an English actress also in Mrs Mowatt’s company. Their daughterFanny(Lily Gipsy)Davenport(1850-1898) appeared in America at the age of twelve as the king of Spain inFaint Heart Never Won Fair Lady. Later (1869) she was a member of Daly’s company; and afterwards, with a company of her own, acted with especial success in Sardou’sFédora(1883),Cleopatra(1890), and similar plays. Her last appearance was on the 25th of March 1898, shortly before her death.
DAVENPORT, ROBERT(fl. 1623-1639), English dramatist, is mentioned as the author of a play licensed in 1624 under the title ofHenry I.In 1653Henry I. and Henry II.was entered at Stationers’ Hall by Humphrey Moseley with a second part said to be the work of Davenport and Shakespeare. Of this play or plays nothing has been discovered, butKing John and Matilda(printed 1655), which probably dates from about the same time, has survived. Throughout the play, as in its closing scene quoted by Charles Lamb in hisDramatic Specimens, there is much “passion and poetry” which saves the piece from being classed as pure melodrama.The City-Night-Capwas licensed in 1624, but not printed until 1661. The underplot of this unsavoury play was borrowed from Cervantes and Boccaccio, and Mrs Aphra Behn’sAmorous Prince(1671) is an adaptation from it.A New Tricke to Cheat the Divell(printed 1639) is a farcical comedy, which contains among other things the idea of the popular supper story which reappears in Hans Andersen’sLittle Claus and Big Claus. As told by Davenport the story closely resembles theScottish Freires of Berwick, which was printed in 1603. Three other plays entered in the Stationers’ Register as Davenport’s are lost, and he collaborated in two plays with Thomas Drue.
Davenport’s plays were reprinted by A. H. Bullen inOld English Plays(new series, 1890). The volume includes two didactic poems, which first saw the light in 1623.
Davenport’s plays were reprinted by A. H. Bullen inOld English Plays(new series, 1890). The volume includes two didactic poems, which first saw the light in 1623.
DAVENPORT,a city and the county seat of Scott county, Iowa, U.S.A., on the Mississippi river, opposite Rock Island, Illinois, with which it is connected by two fine bridges and by a ferry. It is the third largest city in the state. Pop. (1890) 26,872; (1900) 35,254, including 8479 foreign-born (6111 German), and 19,230 of foreign parentage (13,294 German); (1905, state census) 39,797; (1910) 43,028. Davenport is served by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Iowa & Illinois (interurban), and the Davenport, Rock Island & North Western railways; opposite the city is the western terminus of the Illinois and Mississippi, or Hennepin, Canal (which connects the Mississippi and Illinois rivers). Davenport lies on the slope of a bluff affording extensive views of landscape and river scenery. In the city are an excellent public library, an Academy of Sciences, several turn-halls and other German social organizations, the Iowa soldiers’ orphans’ home, Brown business college, and several minor Roman Catholic institutions. Davenport is an episcopal see of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Episcopal churches. The city has a large commerce and trade by water and rail in coal and grain, which are produced in the vicinity, is of special importance. With Rock Island and Moline it forms one great commercial unit. Among Davenport’s manufactures are the products of foundries and machine shops, and of flouring, grist and planing mills; glucose syrup and products; locomotives, steel cars and car parts, washing machines, waggons, carriages, agricultural implements, buttons, macaroni, crackers and brooms. The value of the total factory product for 1905 was $13,695,978, an increase of 38.7% over that of 1900. Davenport was founded in 1835, under the leadership of Colonel George Davenport; it was incorporated as a town in 1838, and was chartered as a city in 1851.
DAVENTRY,a market town and municipal borough in the Southern parliamentary division of Northamptonshire, England, 74 m. N.W. from London by the London & North Western railway. Pop. (1901) 3780. It is picturesquely situated on a sloping site in a rich undulating country. On the adjacent Borough Hill are extensive earthworks, and the discovery of remains here and at Burnt Walls, immediately south, proves the existence of a considerable Roman station. The chief industry of the town is the manufacture of boots and shoes. The borough is under a mayor, four aldermen and twelve councillors. Area, 3633 acres.
In spite of the Roman remains on Borough Hill, nothing is known of the town itself until the time of the Domesday Survey, when the manor consisting of eight hides belonged to the countess Judith, the Conqueror’s niece. According to tradition, Daventry was created a borough by King John, but there is no extant charter before that of Elizabeth in 1576, by which the town was incorporated under the name of the bailiff, burgesses and commonalty of the borough of Daventry. The bailiff was to be chosen every year in the Moot Hall and to be assisted by fourteen principal burgesses and a recorder. James I. confirmed this charter in 1605-1606, and Charles II. in 1674-1675 granted a new charter. The “quo warranto” rolls show that a market every Wednesday and a fair on St Augustine’s day were granted to Simon son of Walter by King John. The charter of 1576 confirms this market and fair to the burgesses, and grants them two new fairs each continuing for two days, on Tuesday after Easter and on the feast of St Matthew the Apostle. Wednesday is still the market day. The town was an important coaching centre, and there was a large local industry in the manufacture of whips. During the civil wars Daventry was the headquarters of Charles I. in the summer of 1645, immediately before the battle of Naseby, at which he was defeated. A Cluniac priory founded here shortly after the Conquest has left no remains.
DAVEY OF FERNHURST, HORACE DAVEY,Baron(1833-1907), English judge, son of Peter Davey, of Horton, Bucks, was born on the 30th of August 1833, and educated at Rugby and University College, Oxford. He took a double first-class in classics and mathematics, was senior mathematical scholar and Eldon law scholar, and was elected a fellow of his college. In 1861 he was called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn, and read in the chambers of Mr (afterwards Vice-Chancellor) Wickens. Devoting himself to the Chancery side, he soon acquired a large practice, and in 1875 became a Q.C. In 1880 he was returned to parliament as a Liberal for Christchurch, Hants, but lost his seat in 1885. On Gladstone’s return to power in 1886 he was appointed solicitor-general and was knighted, but had no seat in the House, being defeated at both Ipswich and Stockport in 1886; in 1888 he found a seat at Stockton-on-Tees, but was rejected by that constituency in 1892. As an equity lawyer Sir Horace Davey ranked among the finest intellects and the most subtle pleaders ever known at the English bar. He was standing counsel to the university of Oxford, and senior counsel to the Charity Commissioners, and was engaged in all the important Chancery suits of his time. Among the chief leading cases in which he took a prominent part were those ofThe Mogul Steamship Companyv.M‘Gregor, 1892,Boswellv.Coaks, 1884,Erlangerv.New Sombrero Company, 1878, and theOoregum Gold Mines Companyv.Roper, 1892; he was counsel for the promoters in the trial of the bishop of Lincoln, and leading counsel in the Berkeley peerage case. In 1862 he married Miss Louisa Donkin, who, with two sons and four daughters, survived him. In 1893 he was raised to the bench as a lord justice of appeal, and in the next year was made a lord of appeal in ordinary and a life peer. He died in London on the 20th of February 1907. Lord Davey’s great legal knowledge was displayed in his judgments no less than at the bar. In legislation he took no conspicuous part, but he was a keen promoter of the act passed in 1906 for the checking of gambling.
DAVID(a Hebrew name meaning probablybeloved1), in the Bible, the son of Jesse, king of Judah and Israel, and founder of the royal Judaean dynasty at Jerusalem. The chronology of his period is uncertain: the usual date, 1055-1015 B.C., is probablySource.thirty years to half a century too early. The books of Samuel (strictly, 1 Sam. xvi.-1 Kings ii.), which are our principal source for the history of David, show how deep an impression the personality of the king, his character, his genius and the romantic story of his early years had left on the mind of the nation. Of no hero of antiquity do we possess so life-like a portrait. Minute details and traits of character are portrayed with a vividness which bears all the marks of contemporary narrative. But the record is by no means all of one piece or of one date. This history, as we now have it, is extracted from various sources of unequal value, which are fitted together in a way which offers considerable difficulties to the critic. In the history of David’s early adventures, for example, the narrative is not seldom disordered, and sometimes seems to repeat itself with puzzling variations of detail, which have led critics to the unanimous conclusion that the First Book of Samuel is drawn from at least two sources. It is indeed easy to understand that the romantic incidents of this period were much in the mouths of the people—to whom David was a popular hero—and in course of time were written down in various forms which were not combined into perfect harmony by later editors, who gave excerpts from several sources rather than a new and independent history. These excerpts, however, have been so pieced together, that it is often impossible to separate them with precision, and to distinguish accurately between earlier and later elements. It even appears from a study of the Greek text that some copies of the books of Samuel incorporated narratives which other copies did not acknowledge. For the literary problems of these books, see alsoSamuel (Books).
The parallel history of David in 1 Chron. xi.-xxix. contains a great deal of additional matter, which can rarely be treated as of equal historical value with the preceding. Where it follows the chapters in Samuel it is important for textual and other critical problems, but it omits narratives in which it is not interested (David’s youth, persecution by Saul, Absalom’s revolt, &c.), and adds long passages (David’s arrangements for the temple, &c.) which reflect the views of a much later age than David’s. The lists of officers, &c., are fuller than those in Samuel, and here and there contain notices of value. A comparison of the two records, however, is especially important for its illustration of the later tendency to idealize the figure of David, and the historical critic has to bear in mind the possibility that this tendency had begun long before the Chronicler’s time, and that it may be found in the relatively older records preserved in Samuel.
David’s father, Jesse, was a citizen of Bethlehem in Judah, 5 m. south of Jerusalem; the polite deprecation in 1 Sam. xviii. 18 means little (cf. Saul in ix. 21). Tradition made him a descendant of the ancient nobles ofIntroduction to Saul.Judah through Boaz and the Moabitess Ruth, but the tendency to furnish a noble ancestry for a noble figure—especially one of obscure birth—is widespread (cf.Genealogy). He was the youngest of eight sons,2and spent his youth in an occupation which the Hebrews as well as the Arabs seem to have held in low esteem. He kept his father’s sheep in the desert steppes of Judah, and there developed the strength, agility, endurance and courage which distinguished him throughout life (cf. 1 Sam. xvii. 34, xxiv. 2; 2 Sam. xvii. 9). There, too, he acquired that skill in music which led to his first introduction to Saul (1 Sam. xvi. 14-23, and the apocryphal Psalm of David, Ps. cli. in the Septuagint). He found favour in the king’s eye, and became his armour-bearer.3But traditions varied. In 1 Sam. xvii. he does not follow his master to the field against the Philistines; he is an obscure untried shepherd lad sent by his father with supplies for his brothers in the Israelite camp. He does not even present himself before the king, and his brothers treat him with a petulance hardly conceivable if he stood well at court, and it appears from the close that neither Saul nor his captain Abner had heard of him before (vv. 55-58). There is, indeed, a flat contradiction between the two accounts, but a family of Greek MSS. represented by the Vatican text omit xvii. 12-31, xvii. 55-xviii. 5, and thus the difficulty is greatly lessened. Characteristic of the omitted portions are the friendship which sprang up between Jonathan and David and the latter’s appointment to a command in the army. A further difficulty is caused by 2 Sam. xxi. 19, which makes Elhanan the slayer of Goliath. David’s exploit is not referred to in 1 Sam. xxi. 10-15, xxix., and on this and other grounds the simpler tradition in 2 Sam. is usually preferred. (SeeGoliath.) But it must have been by some valiant deed that Saul was led to notice him (cf. xiv. 52), and David soon became both a popular hero and an object of jealousy to Saul. According to the Hebrew text of 1 Sam. xviii., Saul’s jealousy leaped at once to the conclusion that David’s ambition would not stop short of the kingship. Such a suspicion would be intelligible if we could suppose that the king had heard something of the significant act of Samuel, which now stands at the head of the history of David in witness of that divine election and unction with the spirit of Yahweh on which his whole career hung (xvi. 1-13). But this passage is the sequel to the rejection of Saul in xv., and Samuel’s position agrees with that of the late writer in vii., viii. and xii.4
The shorter text, represented by the Septuagint, gives an account of Saul’s jealousy which is psychologically more intelligible.5According to this text Saul was simply possessed with such a personal dislike and dread ofConflicts with Saul.David as might easily occupy his disordered brain. To be quit of his hateful presence he gave him a military command. In this charge David increased his reputation as a soldier and became a general favourite. Saul’s daughter Michal loved him; and her father, whose jealousy continued to increase, resolved to put the young captain on a perilous enterprise, promising him the hand of Michal as a reward of success, but secretly hoping that he would perish in the attempt. David’s good fortune did not desert him; he won his wife, and in this new advancement continued to grow in the popular favour, and to gain fresh laurels in the field. At this point it is necessary to look back on the proposed marriage of David with Saul’s eldest daughter Merab (xviii. 17-19; cf. xvii. 2-5). When the time came for Saul to fulfil his promise, Merab was given to Adriel of Abel-Meholah (perhaps an Aramaean). What is said of this affair interrupts the original context of chap. xviii., to which the insertion has been clumsily fitted by an interpolation in the second half of ver. 21 (LXX omits). We have here, therefore, a notice drawn from a distinct source which connects itself with the other omitted passage, xvii. 12-31, where Saul had promised his daughter to the one who should overthrow Goliath (ver. 25). Since Merab and Michal are confounded in 2 Sam. xxi. 8, the whole episode of Merab and David perhaps rests on a similar confusion of names.
As the king’s son-in-law, David was necessarily again at court. He became chief of the bodyguard, as Ewald rightly interprets 1 Sam. xxii. 14, and ranked next to Abner (xx. 25), so that Saul’s insane fears were constantly exasperated by personal contact with him. On at least one occasion the king’s frenzy broke out in an attempt to murder David with his own hand.6At another time Saul actually gave commands to assassinate his son-in-law, but the breach was made up by Jonathan, whose chivalrous spirit had united him to David in a covenant of closest friendship (xix. 1-7). The circumstances of the final outburst of Saul’s hatred, which drove David into exile, are not easily disentangled.The narrative of 1 Sam. xx., which is the principal account of the matter, cannot originally have been preceded by xix. 11-24; in chap. xx. David appears to be still at court, and Jonathan is even unaware that he is in any danger, whereas the preceding verses represent him as already a fugitive. It may also be doubted whether the narrative of David’s escape from his own house by the aid of his wife Michal (xix. 11-17) has any close connexion with ver. 10, and does not rather belong to a later period.7David’s daring spirit might very well lead him to visit his wife even after his first flight. The danger of such an enterprise was diminished by the reluctance to violate the apartments of women and attack a sleeping foe, which appears also in Judges xvi. 2, and among the Arabs.8
According to chap. xx. David was still at court in his usual position when he became certain that the king was aiming at his life. He betook himself to Jonathan, who thought his suspicions groundless, but undertook to test them. A plan was arranged by which Jonathan should draw from the king an expression of his feelings, and a tremendous explosion revealed that Saul regarded David as the rival of his dynasty, and Jonathan as little better than a fellow-conspirator. After a final interview (xx. 40-42), which must be regarded as a later expansion, they parted and David fled. He sought the sanctuary at Nob, where he had been wont to consult the priestly oracle (xxii. 15), and here, concealing his disgrace by a fictitious story, he also obtained bread from the consecrated table and the sword of Goliath (chap. xxi. i-9).9His hasty flight—without food and weapon—suggests that the narrative should follow upon xix. 17.
It was perhaps after this that David made a last attempt to find a place of refuge in the prophetic circle of Samuel at Ramah (xix. 18-24). The episode now stands in another connexion, where it is certainly out of place. It might,Outlaw life.however, fit into the break that plainly exists in the history at xxi. 10 after the affair at Nob. Deprived of the protection of religion as well as of justice, David tried his fortune among the Philistines at Gath. Recognized and suspected as a redoubtable foe, he made his escape by feigning madness, which in the East has inviolable privileges (xxi. 11-16).10The passage anticipates chap. xxvii., and it is hardly probable that the slayer of Goliath or of any other Philistine giant fled to the Philistines with their dead hero’s sword. He returned to the wilds of Judah, and was joined at Adullam11by his father’s house and by a small band of outlaws, of which he became the head. Placing his parents under the charge of the king of Moab, he took up the life of a guerilla captain, cultivating friendly relations with the townships of Judah (xxx. 26), which were glad to have on their frontiers a protector so valiant as David, even at the expense of the blackmail which he levied in return. A clear conception of his life at this time, and of the respect which he inspired by the discipline in which he held his men, and of the generosity which tempered his fiery nature, is given in chap. xxv. His force gradually swelled, and he was joined by the prophet Gad (note his message xxii. 5) and by the priest Abiathar, the only survivor of a terrible massacre by which Saul took revenge for the favours which David had received at the sanctuary of Nob. He was even able to strike at the Philistines, and to rescue Kĕīlah (south of Adullam and to the east of Beit Jibrīn) from their attack (xxiii. 1-13). Forced to flee by the treachery of the very men whom he had succoured, he lived for a time in constant fear of being captured by Saul, and at length took refuge with Achish king of Gath and established himself in Ziklag. Popular tradition, as though unwilling to let David escape from Saul, told of that king’s continual pursuit of the outlaw, of the attempt of the men of Ziph (S.E. of Hebron) to betray him, of David’s magnanimity displayed on two occasions, and of Jonathan’s visit to console his bosom friend (xxiv.-xxvi.).12The situation was one which lent itself to the imagination.
The site of Ziklag is unknown. It hardly lay near Gath (probably Tell es-Sāfi, 12 m. E. of Ashdod), but rather to the south of Judah (Josh. xix. 5). Here he occupied himself in chastening the Amalekites and other robber tribes who made raids on Judah and the Philistines without distinction (xxvii.). The details of the text are obscure, and seem to imply that David systematically attacked populations friendly to Achish whilst pretending that he had been making forays against Judah. If this were an attempt to steer a middle course his true actions could not have been kept secret long, and as it is implied that the Philistines subsequently acquiesced in David’s sovereignty in Hebron, it is not easy to see what interest they had in embroiling him with the men of Judah. At length, in the second year, he was called to join his master in a great campaign against Saul. The Philistines for once directed their forces towards the plain of Jezreel (Esdraelon) in the north; and Saul, forsaken by Yahweh, already gave himself up for lost. David accompanied the army as a matter of course. But his presence was not observed until they reached their destination, when the jealousy of the Philistines overrode his protestations of fidelity and he was ordered to return. He reached Ziklag only to find the town pillaged by the Amalekites. Pursuing the foes, he inflicted upon them a signal chastisement and took a great booty, part of which he spent in politic gifts to the leading men of the towns in the south country.13
Meantime Saul had fallen in battle, and northern Israel was in a state of chaos. The Philistines took possession of the fertile lowlands of Jezreel and the Jordan, and the shattered forces of Israel were slowly rallied by Abner in the remote city of Mahanaim in Gilead, under the nominal sovereignty of Saul’s son Ishbaal. David now took the first great step to the throne. He was no longer an outlaw with a band of wandering companions, but a petty chieftain, head of a small colony of men, allied with families of Caleb and Jezreel (in Judah), and on friendly footingKing at Hebron.with the sheikhs south of Hebron. In response to an oracle he was bidden to move northwards to Judah and successfully occupied it with Hebron as his capital. Here he was anointed king, the first ruler of the southern kingdom. If the chronological notice may be trusted, he was then thirty years of age, and he reigned there for seven and a half years (2. Sam. ii. 1-4a, 11, v. 4 sq.). The noble elegy on the death of Saul and Jonathan, quoted from the Book of Jashar (2 Sam. i.), is marked by the absence both of religious feeling and of allusions to his earlier experiences with Saul which David might have been expected to make. It was deemed only natural that he should sympathize deeply with the disasters of the northern kingdom. His vengeance on the Amalekite who slew Saul—the account is a doublet of 1 Sam. xxxi.—is consistent with his generous treatment of his late adversary in his outlaw life, and with this agrees his embassy of thanks to the men of Jabesh-Gilead for their chivalrous rescue of the bodies of the fallen heroes (2 Sam. ii. 4b-7). The embassy threw out a hint,—their lord was dead and David himself had been anointed king over Judah; but the relation between Jabesh-Gilead and Saul had been a close one, and it was not to be expected that its eyes would be turned upon the king of Judah when Saul’s son was installed at the not distant Mahanaim.The interest of the narratives is now directed away from the Philistines to the decaying fortunes of Saul’s house. (SeeAbnerandSaul.) Abner had taken Saul’s son Ishbaal and his authority was gradually consolidated in the north. War broke out between the two parties at Gibeon a few miles north of Jerusalem. A sham contest was changed into a fatal fray by the treachery of Ishbaal’s men; and in the battle which ensued Abner was not only defeated, but, by slaying Asahel, drew upon himself a blood-feud with Joab. The war continued. Ishbaal’s party became weaker and weaker; and at length Abner quarrelled with his nominal master and offered the kingdom to David. The king seized the opportunity to demand the return of Michal, his wife. The passage (iii. 12-16) is not free from difficulties, but it is intelligible that David should desire to ally himself as closely as possible with Saul’s family (cf. xii. 8). The base murder of Abner by Joab did not long defer the inevitable issue of events. Ishbaal lost hope, and after he had been foully assassinated by two of his own followers, all Israel sought David as king.
The biblical narrative is admittedly not so constructed as to enable us to describe in chronological order the thirty-three years of David’s reign over all Israel. It is possible that some of the incidents ascribed to this period properly belong to an earlier part of his life, and that tradition has idealized the life of David the king even as it has not failed to colour the history of David the outlaw and king of Hebron.
In the preceding account the biblical narratives have been followed as closely as possible in the light of the critical results generally accepted. That they have been affected by the growth of popular tradition is patent from the tracesCritical considerations.of duplicate narratives, from the difficulty caused, for example, by the story of Goliath (q.v.), and from a closer study of the chapters. The later views of the history of this period are represented in the book of Chronicles, where immediately after Saul’s death David is anointed at Hebron king over all Israel (1 Chron. xi.). It is quite in harmony with this that the same source speaks of the Israelites who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chron. xii. 1-22), and of the host which came to him at Hebron to turn over to him Saul’s kingdom (xii. 23-40). This treatment of history can be at once corrected by the books of Samuel, but it is only from a deeper study of the internal evidence that these, too, appear to give expression to doubtful and conflicting views. It is questionable whether David could have become king over all Israel immediately after the death of Ishbaal. The chronological notices in ii. 10 sqq. allow an interval of no less than five and a half years, and nowhere do the events of these years appear to be recorded. But David’s position in the south of Judah is clear. He is related by marriage with south Judaean clans of Caleb, Jezreel, and probably Geshur. (SeeAbsalom.) He was at the head of a small colony (1 Sam. xxvii. 3), and on friendly terms with the sheikhs south of Hebron (xxx. 26-31).14His step forward to Hebron is in every way intelligible and is the natural outcome of his policy. It is less easy to trace his previous moves. There are gaps in the narratives, and the further back we proceed the more serious do their difficulties become. These chapters bring him farther north, and they commence by depicting David as a man of Bethlehem, high in the court of Saul, the king’s son-in-law, and a popular favourite with the people. But notwithstanding this, the relation is broken off, and years elapse before David gains hold upon the Hebrews of north Israel, the weakness of the union being proved by the ease with which it was subsequently broken after Solomon’s death. Much of the life of Saul is obscure, and this too, it would seem, because tradition loved rather to speak of the founder of the ideal monarchy than of his less successful rival. (SeeSaul.) It is not impossible that some traditions did not bring them together. If Jerusalem and its immediate neighbourhood were first conquered by David (2 Sam. v.), it is probable that Beeroth and Gibeon (2 Sam. iv. 2, xxi. 2), Shaalbim, Har-heres and Aijalon (Judg. i. 35), Gezer (ib.i. 29), Chephirah and Kirjath-jearim (Josh. ix. 17) had remained Canaanite. The evidence has obviously some bearing upon the history of Saul, as also upon the intercourse between Judah and Benjamin which David’s early history implies. It has been conjectured, therefore, that David’s original home lay in the south. Since the early historical narrative (1 Sam. xxv. 2) finds him in Maon, Winckler has suggested that he was a Calebite chief, while a criticism of the details relating to David’s family has induced Marquart15to conjecture that he was born at Arad (Tell ‘Arād) about 17 m. S.E. of Hebron. Once indeed we find him in the wilderness of Paran 1 (Sam. xxv. 1, LXX reads Maon), and a more southerly origin has been thought of (Winckler). This is involved with other views of the early history of the Israelites; see further below.
In the preceding account the biblical narratives have been followed as closely as possible in the light of the critical results generally accepted. That they have been affected by the growth of popular tradition is patent from the tracesCritical considerations.of duplicate narratives, from the difficulty caused, for example, by the story of Goliath (q.v.), and from a closer study of the chapters. The later views of the history of this period are represented in the book of Chronicles, where immediately after Saul’s death David is anointed at Hebron king over all Israel (1 Chron. xi.). It is quite in harmony with this that the same source speaks of the Israelites who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chron. xii. 1-22), and of the host which came to him at Hebron to turn over to him Saul’s kingdom (xii. 23-40). This treatment of history can be at once corrected by the books of Samuel, but it is only from a deeper study of the internal evidence that these, too, appear to give expression to doubtful and conflicting views. It is questionable whether David could have become king over all Israel immediately after the death of Ishbaal. The chronological notices in ii. 10 sqq. allow an interval of no less than five and a half years, and nowhere do the events of these years appear to be recorded. But David’s position in the south of Judah is clear. He is related by marriage with south Judaean clans of Caleb, Jezreel, and probably Geshur. (SeeAbsalom.) He was at the head of a small colony (1 Sam. xxvii. 3), and on friendly terms with the sheikhs south of Hebron (xxx. 26-31).14His step forward to Hebron is in every way intelligible and is the natural outcome of his policy. It is less easy to trace his previous moves. There are gaps in the narratives, and the further back we proceed the more serious do their difficulties become. These chapters bring him farther north, and they commence by depicting David as a man of Bethlehem, high in the court of Saul, the king’s son-in-law, and a popular favourite with the people. But notwithstanding this, the relation is broken off, and years elapse before David gains hold upon the Hebrews of north Israel, the weakness of the union being proved by the ease with which it was subsequently broken after Solomon’s death. Much of the life of Saul is obscure, and this too, it would seem, because tradition loved rather to speak of the founder of the ideal monarchy than of his less successful rival. (SeeSaul.) It is not impossible that some traditions did not bring them together. If Jerusalem and its immediate neighbourhood were first conquered by David (2 Sam. v.), it is probable that Beeroth and Gibeon (2 Sam. iv. 2, xxi. 2), Shaalbim, Har-heres and Aijalon (Judg. i. 35), Gezer (ib.i. 29), Chephirah and Kirjath-jearim (Josh. ix. 17) had remained Canaanite. The evidence has obviously some bearing upon the history of Saul, as also upon the intercourse between Judah and Benjamin which David’s early history implies. It has been conjectured, therefore, that David’s original home lay in the south. Since the early historical narrative (1 Sam. xxv. 2) finds him in Maon, Winckler has suggested that he was a Calebite chief, while a criticism of the details relating to David’s family has induced Marquart15to conjecture that he was born at Arad (Tell ‘Arād) about 17 m. S.E. of Hebron. Once indeed we find him in the wilderness of Paran 1 (Sam. xxv. 1, LXX reads Maon), and a more southerly origin has been thought of (Winckler). This is involved with other views of the early history of the Israelites; see further below.
David owed his success to his troop of freebooters (1 Sam. xxii. 2), now an organized force, and absolutely attached to his person. The valour of these “mighty men” (gibbōrīm) was topical. The names of the most honoured areCapture of Jerusalem.preserved, and we have some interesting accounts of their exploits in the days of the giants (2 Sam. xxi., xxiii.). We hear of two great battles with the “Philistines” in the valley of Rephaim, near Jerusalem, at a time when David’s base was Adullam (v. 17-25). In one conflict a giant thought to slay him, but he was saved by Abishai, the brother of Joab, and the men took an oath that David should no more go to battle lest he “quench the light of Israel.” On another occasion, Elhanan of Bethlehem slew the giant Goliath of Gath, and David’s own brother Shimei (or Shammah) overthrew a monster who could boast of twenty-four fingers and toes. In yet another incident the Philistines maintained a garrison in Bethlehem, and David expressed a wish for a drink from its well. The wish was gratified at the risk of the lives of three brave men, and he recognized the solemnity of the occasion by pouring out the water as an offering unto Yahweh.
From a later summary (viii. 1) it seems that the Philistines were at length vanquished, and the unknown Metheg-Ammah taken out of their hands.16Not until the district was cleared could Jerusalem be taken, and the capture of the almost impregnable Jebusite fortress furnished a centre for future action. Here, in the midst of a region which had been held by aliens, he fortified the “city of David” and garrisoned it with his men. Meanwhile the ark of Yahweh, the only sanctuary of national significance, had remained in obscurity since its return from the Philistines in the early youth of Samuel. (SeeArk.) David brought it up from Baalah of Judah with great pomp, and pitched a tent for it in Zion, amidst national rejoicings. The narrative (2 Sam. vi.) represents the act as that of a loyal and God-fearing heart which knew that the true principle of Israel’s unity and strength lay in national adherence to Yahweh; but the event was far from having the significance which later times ascribed to it (1 Chron. xiii., xv. sqq.); even Solomon visited the sanctuary at Gibeon, and Absalom vowed his vow unto Yahweh at Hebron. It was not unnatural that the king who had his palace built by Tyrian artists should have proposed to erect a permanent temple to Yahweh. Such, at least, was the thought of later writers, who have given effect to the belief in chap. viii. It was said that the prophet Nathan commanded the execution of this plan to be delayed for a generation; but David received at the same time a prophetic assurance that his house and kingdom should be established for ever before Yahweh.
What remains to be said of his internal policy may be briefly detailed. In civil matters the king looked heedfully to the execution of justice (viii. 15), and was always accessible to the people (xiv. 4). But he does not appear to haveInternal policy.made any change in the old local administration of justice, or to have appointed a central tribunal (xv. 2, where, however, Absalom’s complaint that the king was inaccessible is merely factious). A few great officers of state were appointed at the court of Jerusalem (viii. 16-18, xx. 23-26), which was not without a splendour hitherto unknown in Israel. Royal pensioners, of whom Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth was one, were gathered round a princely table. The art of music was not neglected (xix. 35). A more dangerous piece of magnificence was the harem. Another innovation was the census; it was undertaken despite the protests of Joab, and was checked by the rebukes of the prophet Gad and the visitation of a pestilence (xxiv.). Striking, too, is the conception of the national God who incites the king to do an act for which he was to be punished.17To us, the proposal to number the people seems innocent andlaudable, and the latest sources of the Pentateuch contain several such lists. This new procedure, we may imagine, was resented by the northern Hebrews as an encroachment upon their liberties. We learn that the destroying angel was stayed at the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite,18and the spot thus sanctified was made a sanctuary, and commemorated by an altar. It was the very place upon which Solomon’s temple was supposed to be founded. The census-taking may have been a preliminary to the great wars, but the latter, on the other hand, are obviously presupposed by the extent of his kingdom. For his wars a larger force than his early bodyguard was required, and the Chronicler gives an account of the way in which an army of nearly 300,000 was raised and held by David’s thirty heroes (1 Chron. xxvii.). It is certain at all events that no small body of soldiers would be needed, and this alone would imply that all Israel was by this time under his entire control.
Apart from the Ammonite war, our sources are confined to a mere summary (viii.), which includes even the Amalekites (viii. 12, cf. i Sam. xxx.). After the defeat of the Philistines came the turn of Moab. It was under theWars and conquests.care of the king of Moab that David placed his parents when he fled from Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 3 sqq.), and what led to the war is unknown. The severity with which the land was treated may pass for a gentle reprisal if the Moabites of that day were not more humane than their descendants in the days of King Mesha.19A deadly conflict with the Ammonites was provoked by a gross insult to friendly ambassadors of Israel;20and this war, of which we have pretty full details in 2 Sam. x. i-xi. 1, xii. 26-31, assumed unexpected dimensions when the Ammonites procured the aid of their Aramean neighbours. The defeat of Hadadezer brought about the submission of other lesser kings. The glory of this victory was increased by the complete subjugation of Edom in a war conducted by Joab with characteristic severity (2 Sam. viii. 13; 1 Kings xi. 15-17; Ps. lx., title). The fall of Rabbah concludes David’s war-like exploits; he carried off the jewelled crown of their god (Milcom), and subjected the people, not to torture (1 Chron. xx. 3), but to severe menial labour (xii. 26-31).