The St Bernard is a large breed taking its name from the monastery of Mount St Bernard in the Alps, and remarkable for high intelligence and use in rescuing travellers from the snow. The origin of the breed is unknown, but undoubtedly it is closely related to spaniels. The St Bernard attains as great a size as that of any other breed, a fine specimen being between 60 and 70 in. from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail. The colour varies, but shades of tawny-red and white are more frequent than in Newfoundlands. In the rough-haired breed the coat is long and wavy, but there exists a smooth breed with a nearly smooth coat.
Hounds.—These are large dogs, hunting by smell, with massive structure, large drooping ears, and usually smooth coats, without fringes of hair on the ears, limbs or tail. The bloodhound is probably the stock from which all the English races of hounds have been derived. The chief character is the magnificent head, narrow and dome-like between the huge pendulous ears, and with transverse puckers on the forehead and between the eyes. The prevailing colour is tan with large black spots. Bloodhounds, or, as they are sometimes termed, sleuthhounds, have been employed since the time of the Romans in pursuing and hunting down human beings, and a small variety, known as the Cuban bloodhound, probably of Spanish origin, was used to track fugitive negroes in slaveholding times. Bloodhounds quest slowly and carefully, and when they lose the scent cast backwards until they recover the original trail and make a fresh attempt to follow it.
Staghounds are close derivatives of the bloodhound, and formerly occurred in England in two strains, known respectively as the northern and southern hounds. Both breeds were large and heavy, with pendulous ears and thick throats with dewlaps. These strains seem to be now extinct, having been replaced by foxhounds, a large variety of which is employed in stag-hunting.
The modern English foxhound has been bred from the old northern and southern hounds, and is more lightly built, having been bred for speed and endurance. The favourite and most common colour is black-white-and-tan. The ears are usually artificially clipped so as to present a rounded lower margin. Their dash and vigour in the chase is much greater than that of the bloodhound, foxhounds casting forwards when they have lost the trail.
Harriers are a smaller breed of foxhounds, distinguished by their pointed ears, as it is not the custom to trim these. They are used in the pursuit of hares, and, although they are capable of very fast runs, have less endurance than foxhounds, and follow the trail with more care and deliberation.
Otterhounds are thick, woolly harriers with oily underfur. They are savage and quarrelsome, but are naturally excellent water-dogs.
Beagles are small foxhounds with long bodies and short limbs. They have a full bell-like cry and great cunning and perseverance in the tracking of hares and rabbits. They are relatively slow, and are followed on foot.
Turnspits were a small, hound-like race of dogs with long bodies, pendulous ears, out-turned feet and generally black-and-tan coloration. They were employed as animated roasting jacks, turning round and round the wire cage in which they were confined, but with the employment of mechanical jacks their use ceased and the race appears to be extinct.
Basset hounds are long and crooked-legged dogs, with pendulous ears. They appear to have been produced in Normandy and the Vendée, where they were employed for sporting purposes, and originally were no very definite breed. In comparatively recent times they have been adopted by English fanciers, and a definite strain with special points has been produced.
The dachshund, or badger hound, is of German origin, and like the basset hound was originally an elongated distorted hound with crooked legs, employed in baiting and hunting badgers, but now greatly improved and made more definite by the arts of the breeder. The colour is generally black-and-tan or brownish, the body is extremely long and cylindrical; the ears are large and pendulous, the legs broad, thick and twisted, with everted paws. The coat is short, thick and silky, and the tail is long and tapering.
The pointers, of which there are breeds slightly differing in most European countries, are descendants of the foxhound which have been taught to follow game by general body scent, not by tracking, nose to the ground, the traces left by the feet of the quarry, and, on approaching within sight of the game, to stand rigid, “pointing” in its direction. The general shape is like that of the foxhound, but the build is lighter and better knit, and the coat is soft, whilst white and spotted colorations are preferred. Pointers are employed to mark game for guns, and are especially useful in low cover such as that afforded by turnip fields.
Plate III.
Plate IV.
The Dalmatian or coach dog (sometimes called the plum-pudding dog) is a lightly built pointer, distinguished by its spotted coloration, consisting of evenly disposed circular black spots on a white ground. The original breed is said to have been used as a pointer in the country from which it takes its name, but has been much modified by the fancier’s art, and almost certainly the original strain has been crossed with bull-terriers.
Mastiffsare powerful, heavily built dogs, with short muzzles, frequently protruding lower jaws, skulls raised above the eyes, ears erect or pendulous, pendulous upper lips, short coats and thin tails. The English mastiff is a huge and powerful dog with pendent ears but short and silky coat. Fawn and brindle are the colours preferred. The Tibetan mastiff is equally powerful, but has still larger pendent ears, a shaggy coat and a long brush-like tail. Mastiffs are employed for fighting or as watchdogs, and for the most part are of uncertain temper and not high intelligence.
The bulldog is a small, compact but extremely heavily built animal of great strength, vigour and tenacity. The lower jaw should be strongly protruding, the ears should be small and erect, the forehead deeply wrinkled with an indentation between the eyes, known as the “stop.” The coat should be thick, short and very silky, the favourite colours being white and white marked with brindle. Bulldogs were formerly employed in bull-baiting, and the tenacity of their grip is proverbial. Their ferocious appearance, and not infrequently the habits of their owners, have given this breed a reputation for ferocity and low intelligence. As puppies, however, bulldogs are highly intelligent and unusually docile and affectionate, and if well trained retain throughout life an unusual sweetness of disposition, the universal friendliness of which makes them of little use as guardians.
The German boarhound is one of the largest races of dogs, originally used in Germany and Denmark for hunting boars or deer, but now employed chiefly as watchdogs. The build is rather slighter than that of the English mastiff, and the ears are small and carried erect.
The Great Dane is somewhat similar in general character, but is still more gracefully built, with slender limbs and more pointed muzzle. The ears, naturally pendent at the tips, are always cropped. It is probable that the strain contains greyhound blood.
The bull-terrier, as its name implies, is a cross between the bulldog and the smooth terrier. It is a clever, agile and powerful dog, extremely pugnacious in disposition.
The pugdog is a dwarf race, probably of mastiff origin, and kept solely as a pet. The Chinese pug is slender legged, with long hair and a bushy tail.
Terriersare small dogs of agile and light build, short muzzles, and very highly arched skulls. The brains are large, and the intelligence and educability extraordinarily high. The number of breeds is very large, the two extreme types being the smooth fox-terrier with compact shape, relatively long legs, and the long-bodied, short-legged Skye terrier, with long hair and pendent ears.
All the well-known breeds of dogs are highly artificial and their maintenance requires the constant care of the breeder in mating, and in rejecting aberrant progeny. The frequency with which even the most highly cultivated strains produce degenerate offspring is notorious, and is probably the reason for the profound belief in telegonic action asserted by most breeders. When amongst the litter of a properly mated, highly bred fox-terrier, pups are found with long bodies and thick short legs and feet, breeders are disposed to excuse the result by the supposition that the bitch has been contaminated by some earlier mating. There is ample evidence, however, that such departures from type are equally frequent when there was no possibility of earlier mismating (seeTelegony).
Glossary of Points of the Dog.
Apple Head.A rounded head, instead of flat on top.Blaze.A white mark up the face.Brisket.The part of body in front of the chest.Brush.The tail, usually applied to sheepdogs.Butterfly Nose.A spotted nose.Button Ear.Where the tip falls over and covers the orifice.Cat Foot.A short round foot, knuckles high and well developed.Cheeky.When the cheek bumps are strongly defined.Chest.Underneath a dog from brisket to belly.Chops.The pendulous lip of the bulldog.Cobby.Well ribbed up, short and compact in proportion.Couplings.Space between tops of shoulder blades and tops of hip joints.Cow Hocks.Hocks that turn in.Dew Claw.Extra claw, found occasionally on all breeds.Dewlap.Pendulous skin under the throat.Dish Faced.When nose is higher than muzzle at the stop.Dudley Nose.A yellow or flesh-coloured nose.Elbow.The joint at the top of the forearm.Feather.The hair at the back of the legs and under the tail.Flag.A term for the tail, applied to a setter.Flews.The pendulous lips of the bloodhound and other breeds.Forearm.Part of foreleg extending from elbow to pastern.Frill.A mass of hair on the chest, especially on collies.Hare Foot.A long narrow foot, carried forward.Haw.Red inside eyelid, shown in bloodhounds and St Bernards.Height.Measured at the shoulder, bending head gently down.Hocks.The hock joints.Hucklebones.Tops of the hip joints.Knee.The joint attaching fore-pastern and forearm.Leather.The skin of the ear.Occiput.The projecting bone or bump at the back of the head.Overshot.The upper teeth projecting beyond the under.Pastern.Lowest section of leg, below the knee or hock.Pig Jaw.Exaggeration of overshot.Pily.A term applied to soft coat.Rose Ear.Where the tip of ear turns back, showing interior.Septum.The division between the nostrils.Smudge Nose.A nose which is not wholly black, but not spotted.Stifles.The top joints of the hind legs.Stop.The indentation below the eyes, most prominent in bulldogs.Tulip Ear.An erect or pricked ear.Undershot.The lower teeth projecting in front of the upper ones.
Apple Head.A rounded head, instead of flat on top.
Blaze.A white mark up the face.
Brisket.The part of body in front of the chest.
Brush.The tail, usually applied to sheepdogs.
Butterfly Nose.A spotted nose.
Button Ear.Where the tip falls over and covers the orifice.
Cat Foot.A short round foot, knuckles high and well developed.
Cheeky.When the cheek bumps are strongly defined.
Chest.Underneath a dog from brisket to belly.
Chops.The pendulous lip of the bulldog.
Cobby.Well ribbed up, short and compact in proportion.
Couplings.Space between tops of shoulder blades and tops of hip joints.
Cow Hocks.Hocks that turn in.
Dew Claw.Extra claw, found occasionally on all breeds.
Dewlap.Pendulous skin under the throat.
Dish Faced.When nose is higher than muzzle at the stop.
Dudley Nose.A yellow or flesh-coloured nose.
Elbow.The joint at the top of the forearm.
Feather.The hair at the back of the legs and under the tail.
Flag.A term for the tail, applied to a setter.
Flews.The pendulous lips of the bloodhound and other breeds.
Forearm.Part of foreleg extending from elbow to pastern.
Frill.A mass of hair on the chest, especially on collies.
Hare Foot.A long narrow foot, carried forward.
Haw.Red inside eyelid, shown in bloodhounds and St Bernards.
Height.Measured at the shoulder, bending head gently down.
Hocks.The hock joints.
Hucklebones.Tops of the hip joints.
Knee.The joint attaching fore-pastern and forearm.
Leather.The skin of the ear.
Occiput.The projecting bone or bump at the back of the head.
Overshot.The upper teeth projecting beyond the under.
Pastern.Lowest section of leg, below the knee or hock.
Pig Jaw.Exaggeration of overshot.
Pily.A term applied to soft coat.
Rose Ear.Where the tip of ear turns back, showing interior.
Septum.The division between the nostrils.
Smudge Nose.A nose which is not wholly black, but not spotted.
Stifles.The top joints of the hind legs.
Stop.The indentation below the eyes, most prominent in bulldogs.
Tulip Ear.An erect or pricked ear.
Undershot.The lower teeth projecting in front of the upper ones.
(W. B.; P. C. M.)
DOGE(a modified form of the Ital.duca, Lat.dux, a leader, or duke), the title of the chief magistrate in the extinct republics of Venice and Genoa.
In Venice the office of doge was first instituted about 700. John the Deacon, referring to this incident in hisChronicon Venetum, written about 1000, says “all the Venetian cities (omnes Venetiae) determined that it would be more honourable henceforth to be under dukes than under tribunes.” The result was that the several tribunes were replaced by a single official who was called a doge and who became the head of the whole state. The first doge was Paolo Lucio Anafesto, and some authorities think that the early doges were subject to the authority of the emperors of Constantinople, but in any case this subordination was of short duration. The doge held office for life and was regarded as the ecclesiastical, the civil and the military chief; his duties and prerogatives were not defined with precision and the limits of his ability and ambition were practically the limits of his power. About 800 his independence was slightly diminished by the appointment of two assistants for judicial work, but these officers soon fell into the background and the doge acquired a greater and more irresponsible authority. Concurrently with this process the position was entrusted to members of one or other of the powerful Venetian families, while several doges associated a son with themselves in the ducal office. Matters reached a climax after the fall of the Orseole family in 1026. In 1033, during the dogeship of Dominico Flabianico, this tendency towards a hereditary despotism was checked by a law which decreed that no doge had the right to associate any member of his family with himself in his office, or to name his successor. It was probably at this time also that two councillors were appointed to advise the doge, who must, moreover, invite the aid of prominent citizens when discussing important matters of state. In 1172 a still more important change was introduced. The ducal councillors were increased in number from two to six; universal suffrage, which theoretically still existed, was replaced by a system which entrusted the election of the doge to a committee of eleven, who were chosen by a great council of 480 members, the great council being nominated annually by twelve persons. When a new doge was chosen he was presented to the people with the formula “this is your doge, if it please you.” Nominally the citizens confirmed the election, thus maintaining as a constitutional fiction the right of the whole people to choose their chief magistrate. Five yearslater this committee of eleven gave way to a committee of forty who were chosen by four persons selected by the great council. After the abdication of Doge Pietro Ziani in 1229 two commissions were appointed which obtained a permanent place in the constitution and which gave emphatic testimony to the fact that the doge was merely the highest servant of the community. The first of these commissions consisted of fiveCorrettori della promissione ducale, whose duty was to consider if any change ought to be made in the terms of the oath of investiture (promissione) administered to each incoming doge, this oath, which was prepared by three officials, being a potent factor in limiting the powers of the doge. The second commission consisted of threeinquisitori sopra il doge defunto, their business being to examine and pass judgment upon the acts of a deceased doge, whose estate was liable to be mulcted in accordance with their decision. In consequence of a tie at the election of 1229 the number of electors was increased from forty to forty-one. The official income of the doge was never large, and from early times many holders of the office were engaged in trading ventures. One of the principal duties of the doge was to celebrate the symbolic marriage of Venice with the sea. This was done by casting a precious ring from the state ship, the “Bucentaur,” into the Adriatic. In its earlier form this ceremony was instituted to commemorate the conquest of Dalmatia by Doge Pietro Orseole II. in 1000, and was celebrated on Ascension day. It took its later and more magnificent form after the visit of Pope Alexander III. and the emperor Frederick I. to Venice in 1177.
New regulations for the elections of the doge were introduced in 1268, and, with some modifications, these remained in force until the end of the republic. Their object was to minimize as far as possible the influence of the individual families, and this was effected by a very complex machinery. Thirty members of the great council, chosen by lot, were reduced, again by lot, to nine; the nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve, who chose twenty-five. The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected forty-five. Then the forty-five were reduced by lot to eleven, and the eleven chose the forty-one, who actually elected the doge. As the oligarchical element in the constitution developed, the more important functions of the ducal office were assigned to other officials, or to administrative boards, and he who had once been the pilot of the ship became little more than an animated figurehead, properly draped and garnished. On state occasions he was surrounded by an increasing amount of ceremonial, and in international relations he had the status of a sovereign prince of the first rank. But he was under the strictest surveillance. He must wait for the presence of other officials before opening despatches from foreign powers; he was forbidden to leave the city and was not allowed to possess any property in a foreign land. To quote H. F. Brown, “his pomp was splendid, his power limited; he appears as a symbol rather than as a factor in the constitution, the outward and visible sign of the impersonal oligarchy.” The office, however, was maintained until the closing days of the republic, and from time to time it was held by men who were able to make it something more than a sonorous title. The last doge was Lodovico Manin, who abdicated in May 1797, when Venice passed under the power of Napoleon.
In Genoa the institution of the doge dates from 1339. At first he was elected without restriction and by popular suffrage, holding office for life; but after the reform effected by Andrea Doria in 1528 the term of his office was reduced to two years. At the same time plebeians were declared ineligible, and the appointment of the doge was entrusted to the members of the great and the little councils, who employed for this purpose a machinery almost as complex as that of the later Venetians. The Napoleonic Wars put an end to the office of doge at Genoa.
See Cecchetti,Il Doge di Venezia(1864); Musatti,Storia della promissione ducale(Padua, 1888); and H. F. Brown,Venice: a Historical Sketch(1893).
See Cecchetti,Il Doge di Venezia(1864); Musatti,Storia della promissione ducale(Padua, 1888); and H. F. Brown,Venice: a Historical Sketch(1893).
DOG-FISH,a name applied to several species of the smaller sharks, and given in common with such names as hound and beagle, owing to the habit these fishes have of pursuing or hunting their prey in packs. The small-spotted dog-fish or rough hound (Scyllium canicula) and the large-spotted or nurse hound (Scyllium catulus) are also known as ground-sharks. They keep near the sea bottom, feeding chiefly on the smaller fishes and Crustacea, and causing great annoyance to the fishermen by the readiness with which they take bait. They differ from the majority of sharks, and resemble the rays in being oviparous. The eggs are enclosed in semi-transparent horny cases, known on the British coasts as “mermaids’ purses,” and these have tendril-like prolongations from each of the four corners, by means of which they are moored to sea-weed or some other fixed object near the shore, until the young dog-fish is ready to make its exit. The larger of these species attains a length of 4 to 5 ft., the smaller rarely more than 30 in. The picked dog-fish (Acanthias vulgaris, formerly known asSqualus acanthias) is pre-eminentlythedog-fish. It is the most abundant of the British sharks, and occurs in the temperate seas of both northern, and southern hemispheres. It attains a length of 4 ft., but the usual length is 2 to 3 ft., the female, as in most sharks, being larger than the male. The body is round and tapering, the snout projects, and the mouth is placed ventrally some distance from the end of the snout. There are two dorsal fins, each of which is armed on its anterior edge with a sharp and slightly curved spine, hence its name “picked.” This species is viviparous, the female producing five to nine young at a birth; the young when born are 9 to 10 in. long and quite similar to the parents in all respects except size. It is gregarious, and is abundant at all seasons everywhere on the British coasts. In 1858 an enormous shoal of dog-fish, many square miles in extent, appeared in the north of Scotland, when, says J. Couch, “they were to be found floating in myriads on the surface of every harbour.” They are the special enemies of the fisherman, injuring his nets, removing the hooks from his lines, and spoiling his fish for the market by biting pieces out of them as they hang on his lines. They are however eaten, both fresh and salted, by fishermen, especially on the west coast of England, and they are sold regularly in the French markets.
DOGGER BANK,an extensive shoal in the North Sea, about 60 m. E. of the coast of Northumberland, England. Over its most elevated parts there is a depth of only about six fathoms, but the depth is generally from ten to twenty fathoms. It is well known as a fishing ground. The origin of the name is obscure; but the middle Dutchdoggersignifies a trawling vessel, and was formerly applied generally to the two-masted type of vessel employed in the North Sea fisheries, and also to their crews (doggermen) and the fish taken (dogger-fish). Off the south end of the bank an engagement took place between English and Dutch fleets in 1781. On the night of the 21st of October 1904 during the Russo-Japanese War, some British trawlers of the Hull fishing fleet were fired upon by vessels of the Russian Baltic fleet under Admiral Rozhdestvensky on its voyage to the Far East, one trawler being sunk, other boats injured, two men killed and six wounded. This incident created an acute crisis in the relations between Russia and England for several days, the Russian version being that they had seen Japanese torpedo-boats, but on the 28th Mr Balfour, the English prime minister, announced that the tsar had expressed regret and that an international commission would investigate the facts with a view to the punishment of any responsible parties. The terms were settled on 25th November, the commission being composed of five officers (British, Russian, American and French, and one selected by them), to meet in Paris. On the 22nd of December the four original members, Vice-admiral Sir Lewis Beaumont, Vice-admiral Kaznakov (afterwards replaced by Vice-admiral Dubassov), Rear-admiral Davis and Vice-admiral Fournier, met and chose Admiral Baron von Spaun (Austria-Hungary) as the fifth. Their report was issued on the 25th of February 1905. While recognizing that the information received as to a possible attack led the admiral to mistake the trawlers for the enemy, the majority of the commissioners held Rozhdestvensky responsible for the firing and its results, and “being of opinion that there were no torpedo-boats either among the trawlers nor anywhere near” concluded that “the opening of fire was not justifiable,” though they absolved him and his squadron fromdiscredit either to their “military qualities” or their “humanity.” The affair ended in compensation being paid by the Russian government.
DOGGETT(orDogget),THOMAS(d. 1721), English actor, was born in Dublin, and made his first appearance in London in 1691 as Nincompoop in D’Urfey’sLove for Money. In this part, and as Solon in the same author’sMarriage-hater matched, he gained the favour of the public. He followed Betterton to Lincoln’s Inn Fields, creating the part of Ben, especially written for him, in Congreve’sLove for Love, with which the theatre opened (1695); and next year played Young Hobb in his ownThe Country Wake. He was associated with Cibber and others in the management of the Haymarket and Drury Lane, and he continued to play comedy parts at the former until his retirement in 1713. Doggett is highly spoken of by his contemporaries, both as an actor and as a man, and is frequently referred to inThe TatlerandSpectator. It was he who in 1715 founded the prize of “Doggett’s Coat and Badge” in honour of the house of Hanover, “in commemoration of his Majesty King George’s happy Accession to the Brittish Throne.” The prize was a red coat with a large silver badge on the arm, bearing the white horse of Hanover, and the race had to be rowed annually on the 1st of August on the Thames, by six young watermen who were not to have exceeded the time of their apprenticeship by twelve months. Although the first contest took place in 1715, the names of the winners have only been preserved since 1791. The race is still rowed each year, but under modified conditions.
SeeThomas Doggett, Deceased(London, 1908).
SeeThomas Doggett, Deceased(London, 1908).
DOGMA(Gr.δόγμα, fromδόκεῖν, to seem; literally “that which seems, sc. good or true or useful” to any one), a term which has passed through many senses both general and technical, and is now chiefly used in theology. In Greek constitutional history the decision of—“that which seemed good to”—an assembly was called aδόγμα(i.e.decree), and throughout its history the word has generally implied a decision, or body of decisions or opinions, officially adopted and regarded by those who make it as possessing authority. As a technical term in theology, it has various shades of meaning according to the degree of authority which is postulated and the nature of the evidence on which it is based. Thus it has been used broadly of all theological doctrines, and also in a narrower sense of fundamental beliefs only, confession of which is insisted upon as a term of church communion. By sceptics the word “dogma” is generally used contemptuously, for an opinion grounded not upon evidence but upon assertion; and this attitude is so far justified from the purely empirical standpoint that theological dogmas deal with subjects which, by their very nature, are not susceptible of demonstration by the methods of physical science. Again, popularly, an unprovedex cathedrastatement of any kind is called “dogmatic,” with perhaps an insinuation that it is being obstinately adhered to without, or beyond, or in defiance of, obtainable evidence. But again to “dogmatize” may mean simply to assert, instead of hesitating or suspending judgment.
Three pre-Christian or extra-ecclesiastical usages are recorded by a half-heretical churchman, Marcellus of Ancyra (in Eusebius of Caesarea,Contra Marcellum, i. 4);—words which Adolf Harnack has placed on the title-page of his largerHistory of Dogma. First there is a medical usage—empirical versus dogmatic medicine. On this old-world technical controversy we need not dwell. Secondly, there is a philosophical usage (e.g.Cicero, Seneca and others). First principles—speculative or practical—areδόγματα, Lat.decreta,scitaorplacita. The strongest statement regarding the inviolability of such dogmas is in Cicero’sAcademics, ii. chap. 9. But we have to remember that this is dialogue; that the speaker, Hortensius, represents a more dogmatic type of opinion than Cicero’s own; that it is the maxims of “wisdom,” not of any special school, which are described as unchangeable.1Marcellus’s third type of dogma is legal or political, the decree (says Marcellus) of the legislative assembly; but it might also be of the emperor (Luke ii. 1; Acts xvii. 7), or of a church gathering (Acts xvi. 4), or of Old Testament law; so especially in Philo the Jew, and in Flavius Josephus (even perhaps atContra Apionem, i. 8).
While the New Testament knows only the political usage ofδόγμα, the Greek Fathers follow one which is more in keeping with philosophical tradition. With few and early exceptions, such as we may note in the Epistle ofGreek Fathers.Barnabas, chap, i., they confine the word to doctrine. Either dogma (sing.) or dogmas (plural) may be spoken of. Actually, as J. B. Lightfoot points out, the best Greek commentators among the Fathers are so dominated by this new usage, that they misinterpret Col. ii. 14 (20) and Eph. ii. 15 ofChristiandoctrines. Along with this goes the fundamental Catholic view of “dogmatic faith”—the expression is as old as Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386), if not older—according to which it consists in obedient assent to the voice of authority. All doctrines are “dogmas” to the Greek Fathers, not simply the central teachings of their system, as with the philosophers. Very noteworthy is Cyril of Jerusalem’s fourthCatechetical Discourseon the “Ten Dogmas” (we might render “Ten Great Doctrines”). The figure ten may be taken from the commandments,2as in Gregory Nazianzen’s later, and more incidental, decalogue of belief. In any case, Cyril marks out the way for the subsequent division of the creeds into twelve or fourteen “articles” or heads of belief (see below). In saying that all doctrines rank as “dogmas” during the Greek period, we ought to add a qualification. They do so, in so far as they are held to be of authority. Clement of Alexandria or Origen would not call his speculations dogmas. Yet these audacious spirits start from a basis of authority, and insist uponὀρθοτομία δογμάτων(Stromata, vii. 763). The “dogma” or “dogmas” of heretics are frequently mentioned by orthodox writers. There can be no question of confining even orthodox “dogma” to conciliar decisions in an age when definition is so incomplete; still, we do meet with references to the Nicene “dogma” (e.g.letter in Theodoret,H.E.ii. 15). But dogma is not yet technical for what is Christian or churchly. The word which emerges in Greek for that purpose is “orthodox,” “orthodoxy,” as in John of Damascus (d. 760), or as in the official title still claimed by the Holy Orthodox Church of the East.
Latin Fathers borrow the word “dogma,” though sparingly, and employ it in all the Greek usages. Something novel is added by Jerome’s phrase (in theDe viris illustribus, cc. xxxi., cix.)ecclesiastica dogmata,—found again in theLatin Fathers.title of the treatise now generally ascribed to Gennadius, and occurring once more in another writer of southern Gaul.3The phrase is a serviceable one, contrastingchurchteachings withheretical“dogmas.” But the main Latin use of dogma in patristic times is found in Vincent of Lerins (d. c. 450) in his brief but influentialCommonitorium; again from southern Gaul.Medieval usages.Thereafter the usage gradually drops. In Thomas Aquinas4it does not once occur. On the other hand Thomas has his own technical name—doctrine (sing.) or rathersacra doctrina; and this expression holds its ground, though the usage of Abelard,Theologia, was destined to an even more important place (seeTheology). Another medieval usage of importance is the division of the creed into twelve articles corresponding to the number of the apostles, who, according to a legend already found in Rufinus (d. 410)On the Apostles’ Creed, composed that formula by contributing each a single sentence.The division is found applied also to the “Nicene-Constantinopolitan” creed, both in East and West. Sometimes fourteen articles are detected (in either creed), 7 + 7; the sacred number twice over.5
The Reformation set up a new idea of faith, or recurred to one of the oldest of all. Faith was not belief in authoritative teachings; it was trust in the promises of God and in Jesus Christ as their fulfilment. But the Protestant viewThe Reformation.was apt to seem intangible, and the influence of the learned tradition was strong—for a time, indeed, doctrine was more cultivated among Protestants than in the Church of Rome. The result was a structure which is well named the Protestant scholasticism. The new view of faith is bracketed with the old, and practically neutralized by it; as was already the case in Melanchthon’s theological definitions in the 1552-1553 edition ofLoci Communes, also printed in other works by him. This brings back again the Catholic view of “dogmatic faith.”
The word “article” for a time holds the field. Pope Leo X. in 1520 condemns among other propositions of Martin Luther’s the twenty-seventh—”Certum est in manu Papae, aut ecclesiae, prorsus non esse statuere articulos fidei (imo necArticle.leges morum seu bonorum operum).”The Augsburg Confession (1530) is divided into numerous “articles,” while Luther’s Lesser Catechism gathers Christianity under three “articles”—Creation, Redemption, Sanctification. Where moderns would speak of the “doctrine” of this or that, Lutherans especially, but also churchmen of other communions, wrote upon this or that “article.” Nikolaus Hunnius (διάσκεψις, &c., 1626), A. Quenstedt (c. 1685) and others—in a controversial interest, to blacken the Calvinists still more—distinguished which articles were “fundamental.” Modern Lutheranism (G. Thomasius,Dogmengeschichte, 1874-1876, influenced by T. F. D. Kliefoth 1839) speaks rather of “central dogmas”;6and the Roman Catholic J. B. Heinrich7is willing to speak of “fundamental dogmas,” those which must beknownfor salvation; those for which “implicit” faith does not suffice. When Addis and Arnold’sCatholic Dictionarydenounces the conception of central dogmas, what they desire to exclude as uncatholic is the belief that dogmas lying upon the circumference may be questioned or perhaps denied.8This suggests the great ambiguity both in Roman Catholic and Protestant writers of the 17th century as to the relation between “articles” and “dogmas.” Many writers in each communion felt that an “article” is a higher thing. Others, in each communion, made the identification absolute. Perhaps the Roman theologians of that age were more concerned than the Protestants to draw a line round necessary truths. This attempt was made by Dr Henry Holden (Div. Fidei Analysis, 1652) in connexion with the word “articles.9”
Another term to be considered isdecretum, the old Latin equivalent forδόγμα. Another of Luther’s assertions branded by the pope in 1520—the twenty-ninth—claimed libertyjudicandi conciliorum decreta. On the otherDecreta.hand, the Augsburg Confession protests its loyalty to thedecretumof Nice. What Protestantism saw in the distant past, Trent naturally recognized in the present. Every one of its own findings is adecretum—except five, among the sacramental chapters, each of which is headeddoctrina. Holden again quotes the (indefinite)decretumof the Council of Basel regarding the Immaculate Conception.
The word “dogma” was however to revive, and, with more or less success, to differentiate itself from “doctrine.” Early writers of the modern period, Protestant or Roman Catholic, use it frequently of heretics; thus the Augsburg Confession protestsDogmata in revived use.that the Protestants have carefully avoidednova dogmata. A Roman Catholic writer, Jan Driedo of Louvain, revives the reference toEcclesiastica dogmata—De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus(1533)—using the word, though not exclusively yet emphatically, of teachingsextra canonem scripturae sacrae. Philip Melanchthon’s preface to hisLoci communes(ed. 1535) protests that he has not expressed himselfde ullo dogmate—on any point of doctrine—without careful consideration of what has been said before him. Richard Hooker (d. 1600) in bk. viii. ofEccl. Polity(pub. 1648 or perhaps 1651) quotes Thomas Stapleton, the Roman Catholic (De principiis doctrinalibus fidei, 1579), on the royal right or duty to enforce “dogmas,” and adds a gloss of his own—“very articles of the faith,”—a surprising and probably isolated usage. Many identified Dogmas and Articles by levelling down or broadening out; but Hooker levels up. The statement of the Council of Trent (1545-1562) may be quoted here. The Council will rely chiefly upon Scriptures10in reformandis dogmatibus et instaurandis in ecclesia moribus; the Roman reply to the two sets ofarticuliof Augsburg, and the Roman counterpart to the (later) Protestant assertion that the Bible11is the “only rule of faith and practice.” At Trent, therefore, once more, dogma means doctrine. It still means “doctrine” when the collecteddecretaof Trent bear on their title-page (1564) reference to anIndex dogmatum et reformationis; but here “dogma” is already verging towards the narrower and more precise sense—truth defined by church authority. In other words, it is already edging away from its identification with (all or any) doctrines. On the Protestant side the identity is still clear in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577). This creed formulates its relation to Scripture over and over, as the oneregulaby which alldogmataare to be tried. That characteristic Protestant assertion had been still earlier pushed to the front in “Reformed” creeds,e.g.the First Helvetic Confession (1536), and more notably in the Second (1566).
Protestant creeds had clearly affirmed thatnothing possessed authoritywhichwas not in Scripture: in a short time, Protestant theologians—following an impulse common to all Christian communions—define more sharply theDefinition in Protestant scholasticism.identity of what is authoritative with the letter of Scripture,and call these entire contents dogmas. Here then, under Protestant scholasticism (Lutheran and Reformed), we have the first perfectly definite conception of dogma, and the most definite ever reached. Dogma is the whole text of the Bible, doctrinal, historical, scientific, or what not. Thus dogma isrevealedand isinfalliblytrue. Dogma is doctrine, viz. that body of doctrines and related facts which God Himself has propounded for dogmatic faith. Every true dogma, says Johann Gerhard12—the most representative figure of Lutheran scholasticism—occurs in plain terms somewhere in Scripture.
Over against these sweeping assumptions and deductions, the Roman Catholic Church had to build up its own statement of the basis of belief. Its early controversialists—like Driedo or Cardinal Bellarmine—meet assertions such asRoman Catholic replies.Gerhard’s with a flat denial. The great dogmas are not, literally and verbally, in the Bible. Along with the Bible we must accept unwritten traditions; the Council of Trent makes this perfectly clear. But not any and every tradition; only such as the church stamps with her approval. And that raises the question whether the church has not a further part to play? A. M. Fairbairn holds that D. Petavius’s great workDe theologicis dogmatibus(especially the 1st vol., 1644) made the word “dogma” current fordoctrines which were authoritative as formulated by the church. We must keep in mind, however, that the question is not simply one as to the meaning of a word. The equation holds, more firmly than ever; dogma=the contents offaith. It has to be established on the Roman Catholic side that faith (or dogma; the two are inseparable) deals with divine truths historically revealed long ago but now administered with authority, according to God’s will, by the church. The Englishman Henry Holden (see above), the Frenchman Veronius (François Veron, S.J., 1575-1649) in hisRègle générale de la foy catholique(1652), the German Philipp Neri Chrismann,13in hisRegula fidei catholicae et collectio dogmatum credendorum(1792),14all work at this task. Dogmas or articles of faith (taken as synonymous) depend upon revelation in Scripture or tradition, as confirmed by the church whether acting in general councils or through the pope (in some undefined way; Holden)—in general councils or by universal consent (Chrismann; of bishops? the definite Gallican theory?). Veronius is willing to waive the difficult point of church infallibility as the Council of Trent did not define it. Holden insists strongly upon infallibility. Church traditions are infallible; and church dogmas reach us (from the original revelation) through an infallible medium, the Catholic Church, which the Protestants sadly lack. In Chrismann the word “dogma” has superseded the word “article”; Holden uses both, though “article” has the preponderance. All three writers seek to draw a sharp line round what is “of faith.” Hence in Chrismann (who is in other respects the most definite of the three) we have a view of dogma almost as clear-cut as that of the Protestant schoolmen. Dogmas arerevealed; dogmas areinfallible; the church is infallible on dogmas (for this statement he cites Muratori)and on nothing else.
This whole period of theology, Protestant and Roman Catholic, is statical. Men are defining and protecting the positions they have inherited; they do not think of progress. And yet the Roman Catholic Church had upon its hands one great unsettled question—the thesis of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. This became the standing type of an assertion which, while favoured by the church and on the very verge of dogma, was yet not a dogma15—till the definition came through Pius IX. in 1854. Here then the frontier of dogma had unquestionably moved forward. Its conception must become dynamic; there was need of some theory of development like J. H. Newman’s (1845). It does not happen, however, that the papal definition of 1854 employs theword“dogma”; that honour was withheld from the word until the Vatican decrees of 1870 affirmed the personal infallibility of the pope asdivinitus revelatum dogma. With this, one line of tendency in Roman Catholic doctrine reached its climax; the pope and the council use “dogma” in a distinctive sense for what is definitely formulated by authority. But there is another line of tendency. The same council defines not indeed dogma but faith—inseparable from dogma—as16(1) revealed, (a) in Scripture or (b) in unwritten tradition, and (2) taught by the church, (a) in formulated decrees, or (b) in her ordinarymagisterium. This is a correction of Chrismann. Not only does the correction involve the substitution of papal authority for a universal consent of “pastors” and “the faithful”; it also deliberately ranks the unformulated teachings of the church on points of doctrine as no lessde fidethan those formulated. This amounts to a serious warning against trying to draw a definite line round dogma. The modern Roman Catholic temper must be eager to believe and eager to submit. New dogmas have been precipitated more than once during the 19th century; there may still be others held in solution in the church’s teaching. If so, these are likely one day to crystallize into full dogmas; and, even while not yet “declared,” they have the same claim upon faith.
Thus there seems to be a measure of uncertainty as to what the Church of Rome now calls “dogma”—only in part relieved by the distinction between “dogmas strictly” and mere “dogmatic truths.” Again, the assertion that the church is infallible upon some questions, not belonging to the area of revelation (properly so-called in Roman Catholic theology), destroys the identification of “dogmas” with “infallible certainties” which we noted both in the Protestant schoolmen and in Chrismann. The identification of dogma with revelation remains, with another distinction in support of it, between “material dogmas” (all scriptural or traditional truth) and “formal” or ecclesiastically formulated dogmas.17On the other hand, there is absolute certainty on a point long disputed. Questions about church authority are henceforth questions about the pope’s authority. What he calls heresy, under the sanction of excommunication or that more formal excommunication known as anathema, is heresy. What he finds it necessary to condemn even in milder terms as bad doctrine is infallibily condemned; that is certain, Roman Catholic theologians tell us, though not yetde fide.
Finally we have to glance at a new list of definitions which perhaps in some cases seek more or less to formulate modern Protestant ideas, but which in general represent rather the world of disinterested historical scholarship. That world of the learned offers us non-dogmatic definitions, drawn up from the outside; definitions which do not share the root assumptions either of Catholicism or of post-Reformation Protestant orthodoxy. It might have been best to surrender the term “dogma” to the dogmatists; but few scholars have consented to do so.
1. We may brush aside the view18for which J. C. Döderlein, J. A. A. Tittmann, and more recently C. F. A. Kahnis are quoted. According to this definition, “dogma” means the opinion of some individual theologian of distinction. That might be a conceivable development of usage. It has been said that persons who dislike authority often show great devotion to “authorities”; and the word dogma might make a similar transition. But, in its case, such a usage would constitute a violent break with the past.
2. Though there is no formal definition in the passage, it is worth recording that, towards the end of hisChief End of Revelation(1881), A. B. Bruce sharply contrasts “dogmas of theology” with “doctrines of faith.”19While he manifests no wholesale dislike to doctrine, such as is seen in the Broad Church school, Bruce inverts the Catholic estimate. Dogma stands lowest, not highest. It seems hardly better than acaput mortuum, out of relation to the original faith or the original facts that are held to have given it birth. There is more than a touch of Matthew Arnold in this; though, while Arnold held nothing in religious experience beyond morality to be objectively genuine, Bruce believed in God’s “gracious” purpose.20
3. Much more like Chrismann’s view is the “generally accepted position” among Protestant scholars, as its leading representative to-day, F. Loofs, has called it;21the doctrine enforced within any one church community is dogma. This definition is significant. It means that historians recognize the peculiar importance of those beliefs which are constitutive of church agreement; and it finds some support from the philosophical and political associations of ancient “dogma.” Also Roman Catholic writers could accept the definition in so far astheir own church’s authoritative teachings are concerned. But can ahistorianseparate the opinions which rose to authority in the church from the other opinions which succumbed? Or the accepted modifications of a theory from those which were rejected? Again, can we substitute church authority for that which is always the background of “dogma” as interpreted from inside—divine authority?22Or, again, can we say definitely which doctrinesare“enforced” in Protestant communions and soare“dogmas”? It has even been asserted by A. Schweizer (Christliche Glaubenslehre nach prot. Grundsätzen, 1863-1872) that Protestantism ought not to speak of dogmas at all, except as things of its imperfect past.23And historically it seems plain that—since the age of Protestant scholasticism—there has been nothing in Protestant church life to which the name “dogma” can be assigned, without dropping a good deal of its original connotation. Dogma is no longer24held to be of immediate divine authority. Hence Catholic, and scientific or historical, definitions of dogma are on different planes. They never properly meet.25
4. A. Harnack varies in his usage. He is not prepared to exclude the great medieval pronouncements, or the modern Roman Catholic definitions, from the list of dogmas; but on the whole he prefers to keep in view “one historical species”—Loofs suggests that he ought perhaps rather to say oneindividualtype—that greatest group of Christian dogmas which “was created by the Greek spirit upon the soil of the gospel” (Hist. of Dogma, Eng. tr., vol. i. pp. 17, 21, 22). Thus Harnack agrees with Catholic theologians in holding that, in the fullest sense, there is no dogma except the Catholic. He differs, of course, in holding dogma to be obsolete now. While Protestants, he thinks, have undermined it by a deeper conception of faith,26Roman Catholics have come to attach more value to obedience and “implicit belief” than to knowledge; and even the Eastern Church lives to-day by the cultus more than by the vision of supernatural truth. Again, Harnack gravely differs from Catholic dogmatists in assigning a historical origin to what in their view is essentially divine—supernatural in origin, supernatural even in its declaration by the church. If they do not deny that Greek philosophy has entered into Christian doctrine, they consider it a colourless medium used in fixing the contents of revelation. In all this, Harnack speaks from a point of view of his own. He is no friend of Catholicism or of dogma. Perhaps his detachment makes for clearness of thought; Loofs’s friendliness towards dogma, but in a much humbler sense than the Catholic, involves the risk of confusion.
Both Loofs and Harnack contrast with “dogma” the work of individual thinkers, calling the latter “theology.” Hence they and other authorities wish to see “History of Dogma” supplemented by “Histories of Theology.” Our usual English phrase “History of Doctrine” ignores that distinction.
5. A place must be made for the definition proposed by a philosopher, J. M. E. McTaggart. InSome Dogmas of Religion(1906), he uses “dogma” of affirmations, whether supported by reasoning or merely asserted, if they claim “metaphysical” value, metaphysics being defined as “the systematic study of the ultimate nature of reality.” Briefly, a dogma is what claims ultimate, not relative, truth. This agrees with one feature in ordinary literary usage—the contrast between “dogmatizing” and suspending judgment, or taking refuge in conjecture. But it ignores another quality marked out in common speech—that in respect of which “dogmatism” is opposed to proof. Also it omits the political or social reference so much insisted on by Loofs and others. There are materials for misunderstanding here.
6. A very different view is implied in thesymbolo-fidéismeof Athanase Sabatier and some other French Protestants: religious dogma consists of symbols in contrast to a scientific gnosis of reality. This is a radical version of the early Protestant idea of faith, and yields a theory of what in English we call “doctrine.” More precisely, it is a theory of what doctrine ought to be, or a deeper analysis of its nature; it is not a statement of what doctrine has been held to be in the past. And therefore the definition does not proceed from historical scholarship. Nor yet does it throw light upon “dogma,” if dogma is to be distinguished—somehow—from doctrine.