Chapter 5

(J. S. F.)

DOLOMITES, THE,a mountain district in the South Tirolese Alps, though sometimes it is erroneously considered to form part of some other chain than the Alps. The distinguishing feature of this district is that it is composed of magnesian limestone, which rises in peaks of a most singular degree of sharpness and streaked by veins of the most startling colours. Nowadays it has become well known to tourists, who, however, keep mainly to a few great centres, though most of the more striking peaks were first ascended in the late sixties and early seventies of the 19th century by English mountaineers. Roughly speaking the Dolomite region lies between the Brenner railway from Franzensfeste to Trent (W.) and the road over the Monte Croce Pass from Innichen in the Drave valley by way of the Sexten glen and the Piave valley to Belluno and Feltre (E.). On the north it is limited by the railway line from Innichen toFranzensfeste, and on the south by the railway and road from Trent to Feltre. The highest summit is the Marmolata (10,972 ft.), but far more typical are the Sorapiss, the Cimon della Pala, the Langkofel, the Pelmo, the Drei Zinnen, the Sass Maor and the Rosengarten (seeAlps). Among the chief tourist resorts are St Ulrich (in the Gröden valley), San Martino di Castrozza (near Primiero), Caprile and Cortina d’Ampezzo.

Besides the Dolomites included in the above region there are several other Dolomite groups (though less extensive) in the Alps. N.W. of Trent rises the Tosa group, while in Switzerland there are the Piz d’Aela group, S.W. of Bergün on the Albula Pass route, and the curious little group N. of the village of Splügen, besides other isolated peaks between the St Gotthard and Lukmanier Passes. In Dauphiné itself (the home of the geologist Dolomieu) the mountain districts of the Royannais, of the Vercors, and of the Dévoluy (all S.W. of Grenoble) are more or less Dolomitic in character.

See J. Gilbert and G. C. Churchill,The Dolomite Mountains(London, 1864); Miss L. Tuckett,Zigzagging among Dolomites(London, 1871); P. Grohmann,Wanderungen in den Dolomiten(Vienna, 1877); L. Sinigaglia,Climbing Reminiscences of the Dolomites(London, 1896);The Climbs of Norman-Neruda(London, 1899); V. Wolf von Glanvell,Dolomitenfuhrer(Vienna, 1898); J. Ball,Western Alps(new ed., London, 1898, section 9, Rte. P. French Dolomites).

(W. A. B. C.)

DOLPHIN,a name properly belonging to the common cetacean mammal known asDelphinus delphis, but also applied to a number of more or less nearly allied species. The dolphins, bottle-noses, or, as they are more commonly called, “porpoises,” are found in abundance in all seas, while some species are inhabitants of large rivers, as the Amazon. They are among the smaller members of the cetacean order, none exceeding 10 ft. in length. Their food is chiefly fish, for the capture of which their long narrow beaks, armed with numerous sharp-pointed teeth, are well adapted, but some also devour crustaceans and molluscs. They are mostly gregarious, and the agility and grace of their movements in the water are themes of admiration to the spectators when a “school of porpoises” is playing round the bows of a vessel at sea.

The type of the group is the common dolphin (D. delphis) of the Mediterranean and Atlantic, which usually measures 6 to 8 ft. in length, and is thickest near the centre, where the back fin rises toa height of 9 or 10 in., and whence the body tapers towards both extremities. The forehead descends abruptly to the base of the slightly flattened beak, which is about 6 in. long, and is separated from the forehead by a transverse depression. The mouth is armed with sharp, slightly curved teeth, of uniform size, varying in number from forty to fifty on each side of both jaws. The aperture of the ear is exceedingly minute; the eyes are of moderate size and the blow-hole is crescent-shaped. The colour of the upper surface is black, becoming lighter on the flanks, and perfectly white below. Dolphins are gregarious, and large herds often follow ships. They exhibit remarkable agility, individuals having been known to leap to such a height out of the water as to fall upon the deck. Their gambols and apparent relish for human society have attracted the attention of mariners in all ages, and have probably given rise to the many fabulous stories told of dolphins. Their appearance at sea was regarded as a good omen, for although it presaged a tempest, yet it enabled the sailors to steer for a place of safety. The dolphin is exceedingly voracious, feeding on fish, cuttlefishes and crustaceans. On the south coast of England it lives chiefly on pilchard and mackerel, and when in pursuit of these is often taken in the nets. The female brings forth a single young one, which she nurses most carefully. Her milk is abundant and rich, and during the operation of suckling, the mother floats in a slightly sidelong position, so as to allow of the necessary respiration in herself and her young. The dolphin was formerly supposed to be a fish, and allowed to be eaten by Roman Catholics when the use of flesh was prohibited, and it seems to have been esteemed as a delicacy by the French. Among the seafaring population of Britain the name “dolphin” is most usually given to the beautifully coloured fishCoryphaena hippuris—the dorado of the Portuguese, and it is to the latter the poet is alluding when he speaks of “the dying dolphin’s changing hues.”

Many other allied genera, such asProdelphinus,Steno,Lagenorhynchus, &c., are also included in the familyDelphinidae, some of which live wholly in rivers.

Beside these there is another group of largely freshwater species, constituting the familyPlatanistidae, and typified by the susu (Platanista gangetica), extensively distributed throughout nearly the whole of the river-systems of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Indus, ascending as high as there is water enough to swim in, but never passing out to sea. It is about 8 ft. long, blind and feeds on small fish and crustaceans for which it gropes with its long snout in the muddy waters at the bottom.Inia geoffroyensis, the single species of its genus, frequents the Amazon, and reaches an extreme length of 8 ft. It is wholly pink or flesh-coloured, or entirely black, or black above and pink beneath. A third is the La Plata dolphin,Stenodelphis blainvillei, a species about 5 ft. in length. Its colour is palish brown, which harmonizes with the brown-coloured water of the estuary of the Rio de la Plata. SeeCetacea.

(R. L.*)

DOMAT, orDaumat,JEAN(1625-1696), French jurisconsult, was born at Clermont in Auvergne, on the 30th of November 1625. He was closely in sympathy with the Port-Royalists, was intimate with Pascal, and at the death of that celebrated philosopher was entrusted with his private papers. He is principally known from his elaborate legal digest, in three volumes 4to, under the title ofLois civiles dans leur ordre naturel(1689),—an undertaking for which Louis XIV. settled on him a pension of 2000 livres. A fourth volume,Le Droit public, was published in 1697, a year after his death. This is one of the most important works on the science of law that France has produced. Domat endeavoured to found all law upon ethical or religious principles, his motto beingL’homme est fait par Dieu et pour Dieu. Besides theLois Civiles, Domat made in Latin a selection of the most common laws in the collections of Justinian, under the title ofLegum delectus(Paris, 1700; Amsterdam, 1703); it was subsequently appended to theLois civiles. His works have been translated into English. Domat died in Paris on the 14th of March 1696.

In theJournal des savantsfor 1843 are several papers on Domat by Victor Cousin, giving much information not otherwise accessible.

DOMBES,a district of eastern France, formerly part of the province of Burgundy, now comprised in the department of Ain, and bounded W. by the Saône, S. by the Rhone, E. by the Ain and N. by the district of Bresse. The region forms an undulating plateau with a slight slope towards the north-west, the higher ground bordering the Ain and the Rhone attaining an average height of about 1000 ft. The Dombes is characterized by an impervious surface consisting of boulder clay and other relics of glacial action. To this fact is due the large number of rain-water pools, varying for the most part from 35 to 250 acres in size which cover some 23,000 acres of its total area of 282,000 acres. These pools, artificially created, date in many cases from the 15th century, some to earlier periods, and were formed by landed proprietors who in those disturbed times saw a surer source of revenue in fish-breeding than in agriculture. Disease and depopulation resulted from this policy and at the end of the 18th century the Legislative Assembly decided to reduce the area of the pools which then covered twice their present extent. Drainage works were continued, roads cut, and other improvements effected during the 19th century. Large numbers of fish, principally carp, pike and tench are still reared profitably, the pools being periodically dried up and the ground cultivated.

The Dombes (Lat.Dumbae) once formed part of the kingdom of Arles. In the 11th century, when the kingdom began to break up, the northern part of the Dombes came under the power of the lords of Baugé, and in 1218, by the marriage of Marguerite de Baugé with Humbert IV. of Beaujeu, passed to the lords of Beaujeu. The southern portion was held in succession by the lords of Villars and of Thoire. Its lords took advantage of the excommunication of the emperor Frederick II. to assert their complete independence of the Empire. In 1400, Louis II., duke of Bourbon, acquired the northern part of the Dombes, together with the lordship of Beaujeu, and two years later bought the southern part from the sires de Thoire, forming the whole into a new sovereign principality of the Dombes, with Trévoux as its capital. The principality was confiscated by King Francis I. in 1523, along with the other possessions of the Constable de Bourbon, was granted in 1527 to the queen-mother, Louise of Savoy, and after her death was held successively by kings Francis I., Henry II. and Francis II., and by Catherine de’ Medici. In 1561 it was granted to Louis, duke of Bourbon-Montpensier, by whose descendants it was held till, in 1682, “Mademoiselle,” the duchess of Montpensier, gave it to Louis XIV.’s bastard, the duke of Maine, as part of the price for the release of her lover Lauzun. The eldest son of the duke of Maine, Louis Auguste de Bourbon (1700-1755), prince of Dombes, served in the army of Prince Eugene against the Turks (1717), took part in the War of the Polish Succession (1733-1734), and in that of the Austrian Succession (1742-1747). He was made colonel-general of the Swiss regiment, governor of Languedoc and master of the hounds of France. He was succeeded, as prince of Dombes, by his brother the count of Eu (q.v.), who in 1762 surrendered the principality to the crown. The little principality of Dombes showed in some respects signs of a vigorous life; the prince’s mint and printing works at Trévoux were long famous, and the college at Thoissey was well endowed and influential.

See A. M. H. J. Stokvis,Manuel d’histoire(Leiden, 1889); Guichenon,Histoire de Dombes(1863, 1872); and various works by M. C. Guigue, includingBibliotheca Dumbensis(with Valentin Smith) (1856-1885).

DOMBROWSKI, JAN HENRYK(1755-1818), Polish general, was born at Pierszowice in the palatinate of Cracow, on the 29th of August 1755. Brought up in Saxony, he served for some years in the Saxon army; but when, in 1791, the Polish diet recalled all Poles serving abroad, he returned to his native land. Under Poniatowski, he took part in the campaign of 1792 against the Russians. In 1794 he distinguished himself under Kosciusko in the defence of Warsaw. For two years thereafter he lived in retirement, declining the offers of high ranks in their armies made to him by Russia and Prussia. He then went to Paris, and in January 1797 was authorized by the government of the Cisalpine Republic to organize a Polish legion. This task he executed atMilan. In command of his legion he played an important part in the war in Italy, entered Rome in May 1798, and distinguished himself greatly at the Trebbia (June 19, 1799), and in other battles and combats of 1799-1801. After the peace of Amiens he passed, as general of division, into the service of the Italian republic. Summoned by Napoleon in 1806 to promote a rising in Poland, he organized several divisions of Poles, and distinguished himself at Danzig and at Friedland. In 1809 he served in the Polish campaign and in 1812 he commanded a Polish division in theGrande Armée, being wounded at the passage of the Beresina. He fought under Marmont at the battle of Leipzig (1813), and in the following year returned to Poland. He was one of the generals entrusted by the tsar with the reorganization of the Polish army, and was named in 1815 general of cavalry and senator palatine of the new kingdom of Poland. He retired, however, in the following year, to his estates in Posen. General Dombrowski died at his seat of Wina-Gora in Posen on the 26th of June 1818. He wrote several military historical works in the Polish language.

DOME(Latdomus, house; Ital.duomo, cathedral), an architectural term, derived from a characteristic feature of Italian cathedrals, correctly applied only to a spherical or spheroidal vault, the horizontal plan of which is always a circle. It may be supported on a circular wall, as in the Pantheon at Rome; or on a drum, as in the later Byzantine churches and generally so in the Renaissance styles; or be carried over a square or polygonal area, in which case the base of the dome is connected to the lines of the main wall by pendentives, squinches, corbels or a series of concentric arches, or two of these combined. Its section may be semicircular, pointed, ovoid or segmental; in the latter case it is usually termed a cupola, although the pendentives which carry it continue, on the diagonal lines, the complete spherical dome, as in the entrance vestibule on the south side of the Sanctuary at Jerusalem, attributed to Herod, or in those crowning the bays of the Golden Gateway by Justinian. The dome may be constructed in horizontal courses, as in the “beehive” tombs at Mycenae, with joints radiating to the centre, or a compromise between the two, in a series of small segments of circles, as in the Temple of Jupiter in Diocletian’s palace at Spalato, or again with the lower portion in horizontal courses and the upper portion with arches, as in the Pantheon at Rome.

The dome is probably one of the earliest forms of covering invented by man, but owing probably to its construction in ephemeral materials, such as the unburnt bricks in Chaldaea, there are no examples existing. But in a bas-relief (seeArchitecture, fig. 10), brought by Layard from Kuyunjik, are representations of semicircular and ovoid domes, which show that the feature was well known in Assyria, and as they build domes of the same nature down to the present day and without centring of any kind, it suggests that they may have existed from the remotest ages. The most ancient examples in Europe are those of the “beehive” tombs at Mycenae and elsewhere in Greece, ascribed generally to the 11th centuryb.c.In a sense, they are not true domes, because they are built in horizontal courses of stone, which act like the voussoirs of an arch in resisting the thrust of the earth at the back. This did not exist in the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates or other circular buildings in Greece, because their vertical sections were not portions of circles. For this reason, the conical vault of the Baths in Pompeii is not a dome. The circular Laconicon in the Baths of Titus (a.d.72) may have been domed, and the great hemicycles in the Thermae must certainly have been roofed with semi-domes.

The earliest Roman domes are those of the great circular halls at Baiae near Naples, described as temples, but really forming part of the immense bathing establishments there, the favourite place of resort of the Romans during the latter part of the Republic. The largest on the east side of the Lake of Avernus, known as the Temple of Apollo, is a circular hall with an internal diameter of 100 ft. Those of Diana, Mercury and Venus at Baiae, were 96, 66 and 60 ft. respectively. The vaults were all built in tufa with horizontal courses in brick and cement. Half of the dome of the Temple of Mercury had fallen down, showing the section to have been nearly that of an equilateral arch. From the fact that there were pierced openings or windows in all these domes, they probably constituted thefrigidariaof the baths.

The first example still existing in Rome is that of the Pantheon (a.d.112), where a circular dome, 142 ft. in diameter, rests on a circular wall, its height being about equal to its diameter. The lower courses of this dome, built in the Roman brick or tile, were, up to the top of the third coffer, all laid in horizontal courses; above that, the construction is not known for certain; externally a series of small arches is shown, but they rested on a shell already built. The so-called Temple of Minerva Medica (now recognized as the Nymphaeum of the Baths of Gallienus,a.d.366) is the next dated example. The Nymphaeum was decagonal on plan, so that small pendentives were required to carry the brick dome.

The domed Laconicon of the Thermae of Diocletian (a.d.302) still exists as the vestibule of the church of Santa Maria degli Angeli. Of Constantine’s time there are two small domed examples in the tomb of S. Costanza and the Baptistery of the Lateran, both in Rome, and one in the tomb of Galla Placidia at Ravenna (c.a.d.450). From these we pass to the Sassanian domes at Serbistan and Firuzabad, of the 4th and 5th centuries respectively. These were built in brick and rested on square pendentives. In section they were ovoid. In Syria, the dome over the octagonal church at Esra, built in stone and dateda.d.515, is also ovoid, its height being equal to its diameter,i.e.28 ft. This, as well as the Sassanian domes, was built without centring. The next example is that of the church of Sta Sophia at Constantinople, the finest example existing, both in its conception and execution. It was built by Justinian (537-552) from the designs of Anthemius of Tralles and Isidorus of Miletus. The dome is 104 ft. in diameter, and is carried on pendentives over a square area. The construction is of brick and stone in alternate courses, and the lower part of the dome is pierced with forty windows, which give it an extraordinary lightness. The height from the pavement of the church to the soffit of the dome is 179 ft. No dome of similar dimensions was ever again attempted by the Byzantine architects, and the principal difference in later examples was the raising of the dome on a circular drum pierced with windows.

In order to lighten the dome erected over the church of San Vitale, at Ravenna, it was constructed with hollow cylindrical jars, fitted, the end of one into the mouth of the other; a similar contrivance was adopted in the tomb of the empress Helena (the Torre Pignatiara), the vaults of the Circus of Maxentius on the Via Appia, and the outer aisles of San Stefano, all at Rome, thus dispensing with the buttresses of Sta Sophia.

The domes of the earlier mosques in Cairo were built on the model of Sta Sophia, with windows pierced round the base of the dome and external buttresses between them; these domes were all built in brick coated over with cement or stucco. At a later date, and when built in stone, the upper portion was raised in height and terminated with a point on which a finial was placed. These are the domes inside and outside Cairo, which are carved with an infinity of geometrical patterns interwoven with conventional floral decoration. The upper portion of the dome is very thin, so that there is little weight and comparatively no thrust, and it is to these facts that we probably owe their preservation.

In India, in the “great mosque” of Jama Masjid (a.d.1560) and the Gol Gumbaz, or tomb of Mahommed Adil Shah (a.d.1630) at Bijapur, the domes are carried on pendentives consisting of arches crossing one another and projecting inwards, and their weight counteracts any thrust there may be in the dome. It is possibly for a similar reason that in the Jama Masjid of Shah Jahan at Delhi (1632-1638) and the Taj Mahal (a.d.1630) the domes assume a bulbous form, the increased thickness of the dome below the haunches by its weight served as a counterpoise to any thrust the upper part of the dome might exert. The form is not much to be admired, and when exaggerated, as it is in the churches of Russia, where it was introduced by the Tatars, at times it became monstrous.

From these we pass to the domes of Périgord and La Charente, the earliest of which date from the commencement of the 11th century. Of the western dome of St Étienne at Périgueux (a.d.14) only the pendentives remain, sufficient, however, with later examples, to show that these French domes were different from the Byzantine both in construction and form. The pendentives are built on horizontal courses of stone, and the voussoirs of the pointed arches which carried them form part of the pendentives; a few feet above the top of the arches is a moulding and a ledge, above which the dome, ovoid in section, is built. The principal examples following St Étienne are those of S. Jean-de-Cole, Cahors, Souillac, Solignac, Angoulême, Fontevrault, and lastly St Front at Périgueux, built about 1150, in imitation of St Mark’s at Venice. The domes of the latter church were introduced into the old basilica about 1063, and were based on the church of the Apostles at Constantinople, which was pulled down in the 15th century, so that we have only the clear description of Procopius to go by. The domes over the north and south transepts and the choir of St Mark’s are smaller than those over the nave and crossing, because they had to be fitted in between more ancient structures. The construction of the domes of St Mark’s is not known, but at St Front the general design only was copied, and they built them in the Périgordian manner. The masons from Périgord are also responsible for the domes of the Crusaders’ churches in Palestine and for some of the early churches still remaining in Cyprus. The domes of San Cyriaco at Ancona and Sant’ Antonio at Padua were based upon those of St Mark’s at Venice.

In central Italy we have the dome (elliptical in plan) of the cathedral of Pisa, and it was a favourite feature over the crossing of the churches throughout Italy, being generally carried on squinch pendentives. The domes of the baptisteries of Florence, Parma, Trieste and Piacenza, are only internal, being enclosed with vertical walls and a sloping roof. In Sicily, on account of the strong Saracenic influence, the squinches are simple versions of the stalactite pendentives described underArchitecture:Mahommedan(q.v.), the earliest example being found in the church of San Giovanni-dei-Leprosi (a.d.1072), all the domes being ovoid in section.

Except in Périgord and La Charente, domes are not found in the churches in France, but in Spain they were introduced over the crossing at Burgos, Tarragona and Salamanca cathedrals, and were made architectural features externally. This is rarely found in Germany, for although in the cathedrals of Worms, Spires and Mainz, and in the churches of St Martin and Sankt Maria im Capitol at Cologne, the crossings are covered by domes, always carried on squinch pendentives, externally they built lanterns round them.

In the Renaissance styles, the dome was at once accepted as the principal characteristic feature, and its erection over the crossing of Santa Maria del Fiore at Florence was the first important work entrusted to Brunelleschi. The dome was begun in 1422, and finished in 1431, with the exception of the lantern, begun the year of his death in 1444, and completed in 1471. The dome, which is octagonal on plan, is 139 ft. in diameter, and is built with an inner and outer casing, concentric one with the other, tied together by ribs between them: the lower portion is stone, the upper part is brick.

The double shell was also employed by Michelangelo in the dome of St Peter’s at Rome, the outer shell being raised higher than the lower and connected by ribs one with the other. The diameter is 140 ft. and the construction in brick, similar to that at Florence, but the ribs are in stone from Tivoli. In both these cases the weight of the lantern was a very important consideration, and is responsible for the repeated repairs required and the introduction of additional ties.

In this respect Sir Christopher Wren solved the difficulty at St Paul’s cathedral, London, in another way: he provided three shells, the lower one with an eye in the centre forming the inner dome as seen from the interior; the middle one of conical form, and the outer one framed in timber and covered with lead. The conical shell carries the lantern, the weight of which is carried direct to the base, bound with iron ties, with such additional strength as may be given by the portico round.

In all these cases these domes are built on lofty drums, so that externally they present quite a different appearance to those of the Pantheon at Rome, or Sta Sophia in Constantinople.

Of other examples, the domes of the Invalides in Paris, by Mansard (1706), and of the Panthéon by Soufflot (1735), have each three shells, the former having a graceful outline. In Spain the dome of the cathedral at Granada (1530) and the Escurial (1563); in Italy those of Sta Maria della Salute at Venice, the small example of Bramante at Todi (1480) and of the Carignano at Genoa, are worth recording, as also the dome of the Suleimanie mosque at Constantinople (1550). See plates illustratingArchitecture; andIndian Architecture.

(R. P. S.)

DOMENICHINO(orDomenico),ZAMPIERI(1581-1641), Italian painter, born at Bologna, on the 21st of October 1581, was the son of a shoemaker. The diminutive form of Christian name by which he is constantly known indicates his short stature. He was placed, when young, under the tuition of Denis Calvart; but having been treated with great severity by that master, he left him, and became a pupil in the academy of the Caracci, under Agostino. Towards the beginning of the 17th century he went to Rome, at the invitation of his fellow-pupil and intimate Albani, and prosecuted his studies under Annibale Caracci. The faculty of Domenichino was slow in its development. He was at first timid and distrustful of his powers; while his studious, unready and reserved manners were misunderstood by his companions for dulness, and he obtained the nickname of the “Ox” (Bue). But Annibale Caracci, who observed his faculties with more attention, predicted that the apparent slowness of Domenichino’s genius would in time produce what would be an honour to the art of painting. When his early productions had brought him into notice, he studied with extreme application, and made such advance as to raise his works into a comparison with those of the most admired masters of the time. From his acting as a continual censor of his own works, he became distinguished amongst his fellow-pupils as an accurate and expressive designer; his colours were the truest to nature; Mengs, indeed, found nothing to desire in his works, except a somewhat larger proportion of elegance. That he might devote his whole powers to the art, Domenichino shunned all society; or, if he occasionally sought it in the public theatres and walks, this was in order better to observe the play of the passions in the features of the people—those of joy, anger, grief, terror and every affection of the mind—and to commit them vividly to his tablets; thus, says Bellori, it was that he succeeded in delineating the soul, in colouring life, and calling forth heartfelt emotions, at which all his works aim. In personal character he is credited with temperance and modesty; but, besides his want of sociability, he became somewhat suspicious, and jealous of his master.

In Rome, Domenichino obtained employment from Cardinals Borghese, Farnese and Aldobrandini, for all of whom he painted works in fresco. The distinguished reputation which he had acquired excited the envy of some of his contemporaries. Lanfranco in particular, one of his most inveterate enemies, asserted that his celebrated “Communion of St Jerome” (painted for the church of La Carità towards 1614, for a pittance of about ten guineas, now in the Vatican Gallery, and ordinarily, but most irrationally, spoken of as the second or third best oil picture in the world) was an imitation from Agostino Caracci; and he procured an engraving of this master’s picture of the same subject (now in the Gallery of Bologna), copies of which were circulated for the purpose of proving that Domenichino was a plagiarist. There is in truth a very marked resemblance between the two compositions. The pictures which Zampieri painted immediately afterwards, representing subjects from the life of St Cecilia, only increased the alarm of his competitors, and redoubled their injustice and malignity. Disgusted with these cabals, he left Rome for Bologna, where he remained until he was recalled by Pope Gregory XV., who appointed him principal painter and architect to the pontifical palace. In this architectural post he seems to have done little or nothing, although hewas not inexpert in the art. He designed in great part the Villa di Belvedere at Frascati, and the whole of the Villa Ludovisi, and some other edifices. From 1630 onwards Domenichino was engaged in Naples, chiefly on a series of frescoes (never wholly completed) of the life of St Januarius in the Cappella del Tesoro. He settled in that city with his family, and opened a school. There the persecution against him became far more shameful than in any previous instance. The notorious so-called “Cabal of Naples”—the painters Corenzio, Ribera and Caracciolo—leagued together as they were to exclude all alien competition, plagued and decried the Bolognese artist in all possible ways; for instance, on returning in the morning to his fresco work, he would find not infrequently that someone had rubbed out the performance of the previous day. Perpetual worry is believed to have brought the life of Domenichino to a close; contemporary suspicion did not scruple to speak broadly of poison, but this has remained unconfirmed. He died in Naples, after two days’ illness, on the 15th of April 1641.

Domenichino, in correctness of design, expression of the passions, and simplicity and variety in the airs of his heads, has been considered little inferior to Raphael; but in fact there is the greatest gulf fixed between the two. Critics of the 18th century adulated the Bolognese beyond all reason or toleration; he is now regarded as commonplace in mind and invention, lacking any innate ideality, though undoubtedly a forcible, resolute and learned executant. “We must,” says Lanzi, “despair to find paintings exhibiting richer or more varied draperies, details of costume more beautifully adapted, or more majestic mantles. The figures are finely disposed both in place and action, conducing to the general effect; whilst a light pervades the whole which seems to rejoice the spirit, growing brighter and brighter in the aspect of the best countenances, whence they first attract the eye and heart of the beholder. The persons delineated could not tell their tale to the ear more plainly than they speak it to the eye. The ‘Scourging of St Andrew,’ which he executed in competition with Guido Reni at Rome (a fresco in the church of San Gregorio), is a powerful illustration of this truthful expression. Of the two works of these masters, Annibale Caracci preferred that of Domenichino. It is said that in painting one of the executioners the artist actually wrought himself into a passion, using threatening words and actions, and that Annibale Caracci, surprising him at that moment, embraced him, exclaiming with joy, ‘To-day, my dear Domenichino, thou art teaching me.’ So novel, and at the same time so natural, it appeared to him that the artist, like the orator, should feel within himself all that he is representing to others.” Domenichino is esteemed the most distinguished disciple of the Caracci, or second only to Guido Reni. Algarotti preferred him to the greatest masters; and Nicolas Poussin considered the painter of the “Communion of St Jerome” to be the first after Raphael. His pictures of “Adam and Eve,” and the “Martyrdom of St Agnes,” in the Gallery of Bologna, are amongst his leading works. Others of superior interest are his first known picture, a fresco of the “Death of Adonis,” in the Loggia of the Giardino Farnese, Rome; the “Martyrdom of St Sebastian,” in Santa Maria degli Angeli; the “Four Evangelists,” in Sant’ Andrea della Valle; “Diana and her Nymphs,” in the Borghese gallery; the “Assumption of the Virgin,” in Santa Maria di Trastevere; and frescoes in the neighbouring abbey of Grotta Ferrata, lives of SS. Nilus and Bartholomew. His portraits are also highly reputed. It is admitted that in his compositions he often borrowed figures and arrangements from previous painters. Domenichino was potent in fresco. He excelled also in landscape painting. In that style (in which he was one of the earliest practitioners) the natural elegance of his scenery, his trees, his well-broken grounds, the character and expression of his figures, gained him as much public admiration as any of his other performances.

See Bolognini,Life of Domenichino(1839); C. Landon,Works of Domenichino, with a Memoir(1823).

(W. M. R.)

DOMESDAY BOOK,or simplyDomesday, the record of the great survey of England executed for William the Conqueror. We learn from the English Chronicle that the scheme of this survey was discussed and determined in the Christmas assembly of 1085, and from the colophon of Domesday Book that the survey (descriptio) was completed in 1086. But Domesday Book (liber) although compiled from the returns of that survey, must be carefully distinguished from them; nor is it certain that it was compiled in the year in which the survey was made. For the making of the survey each county was visited by a group of royal officers (legati), who held a public inquiry, probably in the great assembly known as the county court, which was attended by representatives of every township as well as of the local lords. The unit of inquiry was the Hundred (a subdivision of the county which had then an administrative entity), and the return for each Hundred was sworn to by twelve local jurors, half of them English and half Normans. What is believed to be a full transcript of these original returns is preserved for several of the Cambridgeshire Hundreds, and is of great illustrative importance. TheInquisitio Eliensis, the “Exon Domesday” (so called from the preservation of the volume at Exeter), and the second volume of Domesday Book, also all contain the full details which the original returns supplied.

The original MS. of Domesday Book consists of two volumes, of which the second is devoted to the three eastern counties, while the first, which is of much larger size, comprises the rest of England except the most northerly counties. Of these the north-westerly portion, which had Carlisle for its head, was not conquered till some years after the survey was made; but the omission of Northumberland and Durham has not been satisfactorily explained. There are also no surveys of London, Winchester and some other towns. For both volumes the contents of the returns were entirely rearranged and classified according to fiefs. Instead of appearing under the Hundreds and townships they now appeared under the names of the local “barons,”i.e.those who held the lands directly of the crown in fee. In each county the list opened with the holding of the king himself (which had possibly formed the subject of separate inquiry); then came those of the churchmen and religious houses; next were entered those of the lay tenants-in-chief (barones); and last of all those of women, of the king’s serjeants (servientes), of the few English “thegns” who retained land, and so forth. In some counties one or more principal towns formed the subject of a separate section; in some theclamores(disputed titles to land) were similarly treated apart. But this description applies more specially to the larger and principal volume; in the smaller one the system is more confused, the execution less perfect. The two volumes are distinguished even more sharply by the exclusion, in the larger one, of certain details, such as the enumeration of the live stock, which would have added greatly to its size. It has, indeed, been suggested that the eastern counties’ volume represents a first attempt, and that it was found impossible, or at least inconvenient, to complete the work on the same scale.

For the object of the survey we have three sources of information: (1) the passage in the English Chronicle, which tells us why it was ordered, (2) the list of questions which the jurors were asked, as preserved in theInquisitio Eliensis, (3) the contents of Domesday Book and the allied records mentioned above. Although these can by no means be reconciled in every detail, it is now generally recognized that the primary object of the survey was to acertain and record the fiscal rights of the king. These were mainly (1) the national land-tax (geldum), paid on a fixed assessment, (2) certain miscellaneous dues, (3) the proceeds of the crown lands. After a great political convulsion such as the Norman conquest, and the wholesale confiscation of landed estates which followed it, it was William’s interest to make sure that the rights of the crown, which he claimed to have inherited, had not suffered in the process. More especially was this the case as his Norman followers were disposed to evade the liabilities of their English predecessors. The Domesday survey therefore recorded the names of the new holders of lands and the assessments on which their tax was to be paid. But it did more than this; by the king’s instructions it endeavoured to make a national valuation list, estimating the annual value of all theland in the country, (1) at the time of King Edward’s death, (2) when the new owners received it, (3) at the time of the survey, and further, it reckoned, by command, the potential value as well. It is evident that William desired to know the financial resources of his kingdom, and probable that he wished to compare them with the existing assessment, which was one of considerable antiquity, though there are traces that it had been occasionally modified. The great bulk of Domesday Book is devoted to the somewhat arid details of the assessment and valuation of rural estates, which were as yet the only important source of national wealth. After stating the assessment of the manor, the record sets forth the amount of arable land, and the number of plough-teams (each reckoned at eight oxen) available for working it, with the additional number (if any) that might be employed; then the river-meadows, woodland, pasture, fisheries (i.e.weirs in the streams), water-mills, saltpans (if by the sea) and other subsidiary sources of revenue; the peasants are enumerated in their several classes; and finally the annual value of the whole, past and present, is roughly estimated. It is obvious that, both in its values and in its measurements, the survey’s reckoning is very crude.

Apart from the wholly rural portions, which constitute its bulk, Domesday contains entries of interest concerning most of the towns, which were probably made because of their bearing on the fiscal rights of the crown therein. These include fragments of custumals, records of the military service due, of markets, mints, and so forth. From the towns, from the counties as wholes, and from many of its ancient lordships, the crown was entitled to archaic dues in kind, such as honey. The information of most general interest found in the great record is that on political, personal, ecclesiastical and social history, which only occurs sporadically and, as it were, by accident. Much of this was used by E. A. Freeman for his work on the Norman Conquest. Although unique in character and of priceless value to the student, Domesday will be found disappointing and largely unintelligible to any but the specialist. Even scholars are unable to explain portions of its language and of its system. This is partly due to its very early date, which has placed between it and later records a gulf that is hard to bridge.

But in theDialogus de scaccario(temp.Hen. II.) it is spoken of as a record from the arbitrament of which there was no appeal (from which its popular name of “Domesday” is said to be derived). In the middle ages its evidence was frequently invoked in the law-courts; and even now there are certain cases in which appeal is made to its testimony. To the topographer, as to the genealogist, its evidence is of primary importance; for it not only contains the earliest survey of a township or manor, but affords in the majority of cases the clue to its subsequent descent. The rearrangement, on a feudal basis, of the original returns (as described above) enabled the Conqueror and his officers to see with ease the extent of a baron’s possessions; but it also had the effect of showing how far he had enfeoffed “under-tenants,” and who those under-tenants were. This was of great importance to William, not only for military reasons, but also because of his firm resolve to make the under-tenants (though the “men” of their lords) swear allegiance directly to himself. As Domesday normally records only the Christian name of an under-tenant, it is vain to seek for the surnames of families claiming a Norman origin; but much has been and is still being done to identify the under-tenants, the great bulk of whom bear foreign names.

Domesday Book was originally preserved in the royal treasury at Winchester (the Norman kings’ capital), whence it speaks of itself (in one later addition) asLiber de Wintonia. When the treasury was removed to Westminster (probably under Henry II.) the book went with it. Here it remained until the days of Queen Victoria, being preserved from 1696 onwards in the Chapter House, and only removed in special circumstances, as when it was sent to Southampton for photozincographic reproduction. It was eventually placed in the Public Record Office, London, where it can be seen in a glass case in the museum. In 1869 it received a modern binding. The ancient Domesday chest, in which it used to be kept, is also preserved in the building.

The printing of Domesday, in “record type,” was begun by government in 1773, and the book was published, in two volumes fol. in 1783; in 1811 a volume of indexes was added, and in 1816 a supplementary volume, separately indexed, containing (1) the “Exon Domesday” (for the south-western counties), (2) theInquisitio Eliensis, (3) theLiber Winton(surveys of Winchester early in the 12th century), and (4) theBoldon Book—a survey of the bishopric of Durham a century later than Domesday. Photographic facsimiles of Domesday Book, for each county separately, were published in 1861-1863, also by government.

Bibliography.—The following are the more important works to be consulted:—R. Kelham,Domesday Book, illustrated (1788); H. Ellis,General Introduction to Domesday Book(1833), 2 vols., containing valuable indexes to the names of persons; N. E. S. A. Hamilton,Inquisitio Cantabrigiensis(1876), containing the only transcripts of the original returns and the text of theInquisitio Eliensis; E. A. Freeman,History of the Norman Conquest, vols. iv. and v.; F. Seebohm,The English Village Community(1883);Domesday Studies, 2 vols. (1888, 1891), on the occasion of the Domesday Commemoration (1886), by various writers, with bibliography to date; J. H. Round,Feudal England(1895); F. W. Maitland,Domesday Book and Beyond(1897); P. Vinogradoff,Villainage in England(1892) andGrowth of the Manor; A. Ballard,The Domesday Boroughs(1904) andThe Domesday Inquest(1906), an excellent summary; W. H. Stevenson, “A contemporary description of the Domesday Survey” inThe English Historical Review(the general index to which should be consulted) (1907).The Victoria County Historycontains a translation of the Domesday text, a map, and an explanatory introduction for each county.

(J. H. R.)

DOMESTIC RELATIONS,a term used to express the legal relations subsisting between the various units that comprise the family or domestic group. Those units which go to build up the domestic structure of modern society are parent, child, husband, wife, master and servant. The law which deals with the various relations subsisting between them is made up largely of the law of agency, of contract and of tort. SeeHusband and Wife;Master and Servant;Children,Law relating to;Infant.

DOMETT, ALFRED(1811-1887), British colonial statesman and poet, was born at Camberwell Grove, Surrey, on the 20th of May 1811. He entered St John’s College, Cambridge, but left the university in 1833. He published one or two volumes of poetry and contributed several poems toBlackwood’s Magazine, one of which, “A Christmas Hymn,” attracted much admiring attention. For ten years he lived a life of ease in London, where he became the intimate friend of Robert Browning, of whose poem “Waring” he was the subject. An interesting account of the friendship between the two men appeared inThe Contemporary Reviewfor January 1905, by W. H. Griffin. (See alsoRobert Browning and Alfred Domett, edited by F. G. Kenyon, 1906). In 1842 Domett emigrated to New Zealand where he filled many important administrative posts, being colonial secretary for New Munster in 1848, secretary for the colony in 1851, and prime minister in 1862. He returned to England in 1871, was created C.M.G. in 1880, and died on the 2nd of November 1887. Among his books of poetry,Ranolf and Amohia, a South Sea Day Dream, is the best known (1872), andFlotsam and Jetsam(1877) is dedicated to Browning.

DOMFRONT,a town of north-western France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Orne, 43 m. W.N.W. of Alençon by rail. Pop. (1906) of the town, 2215; of the commune, 4663. The town, which is picturesquely situated on a bluff overlooking the Varenne, has a church, Notre-Dame-sur-l’Eau, dating from the 11th century. In the middle ages it was one of the chief strongholds in Normandy, and there still remain several towers of its ramparts, and ruins of the keep of its castle built in 1011, rebuilt in the 12th century by Henry II., king of England, and dismantled at the end of the 16th century. The town is the seat of a sub-prefect, and has a tribunal of first instance and a communal college. Cloth is manufactured, and there are granite quarries in the vicinity. Domfront is said to have grown up in the 6th century round the oratory of the hermit St Front, and played an important part in the wars against theEnglish and the Religious Wars. In 1574 it was occupied by the Protestant leader Gabriel de Montgomery, who after a stubborn siege was forced to yield it to Jacques Goyon, count of Matignon.

DOMICILE(Lat.domicilium, fromdomus, home), in law, a term which may be defined generally as the place of a man’s permanent abode; a precise definition is a matter of acknowledged difficulty. Its use in Roman jurisprudence was to fix the jurisdiction to which a person was subject generally, not by reason of a particular circumstance, as the place where a contract was made or where property is situate. Hence it was admitted that a person might have as many domiciles as he had residences possessing some degree of permanence. In the middle ages, when a great diversity of laws had arisen, questions concerning personal status, as the age of majority or the capacity to contract a given marriage, came naturally to depend on the law to which the person was subject by reason of the general jurisdiction over him; and questions relating to the various items of his movable property grouped together, as those of his testamentary capacity or of the succession on his intestacy, had to be considered from a similarly personal point of view. There resulted a general agreement that a man’s legal character, so to speak, should be determined by his domicile, and this introduced a stricter notion of domicile, allowing each person to have but one. He might be subjected without great inconvenience to more than one jurisdiction, but not to more than one law. This is the position which domicile now holds in English jurisprudence. It is the criterion of the law applicable in a large class of cases, and it must be single for each person; and English courts have continually to struggle with the difficulty of selecting his domicile from among the various places in any of which he may be said to reside.

Since the beginning of the 19th century most of the leading continental states have unified their internal laws; and attachment to a province by domicile having thus become an unnecessary consideration, they have adopted political nationality as the criterion of the law to be applied in most of the questions which used to depend on domicile. Thus as between themselves they have greatly simplified the determination of those questions, but a similar elimination of domicile is impossible in what concerns British subjects, because the British empire continues to include a great variety of laws, as those of England, Scotland, the province of Quebec, the Cape Colony, &c. Within the British dominions domicile is the only available criterion of the legal character of a British subject, and all British courts continue to apply the same criterion to British subjects outside those dominions and to foreigners, so that, for example, the age of majority of a British subject or of a Frenchman domiciled in Germany would be referred by a British court to German law. Indeed so deeply is the principle of domicile seated in British law that only legislative action could allow a British court to substitute a new principle. And even a French, Italian or German court, applying political nationality as its new criterion to the legal character of a British subject, could obtain no definite result unless it supplemented that criterion by the old one, domicile, in order to connect the person in question with one of the legal systems existing in the British dominions.

Again, so long as the change of the criterion has not become universal, a new question is introduced by its having been made in some countries only. Denmark being one of those European states which still adhere to the principle of domicile, we will take it as an example in order not to complicate the illustration by such differences of internal law as exist in the British dominions. Suppose that a Danish court has to decide on the age of majority of a Danish subject domiciled in France, Italy or Germany. Its rule refers the question to the law of the domicile, and the law of the domicile refers it back to the law of the political nationality. What is to be done? This and all other questions relating to the application of the principle of domicile, which has been only summarily indicated, are treated underInternational Law (Private). Here we shall deal briefly with the determination of domicile itself.

The Roman jurists defined domicile to be the place “ubi quis larem rerumque ac fortunarum summam constituit; unde rursus non sit discessurus si nihil avocet: unde cum profectus est, peregrinari videtur: quo si rediit peregrinari jam destitit.” This makes that place the domicile which may be described as the headquarters of the person concerned; but a man’s habits of life may point to no place, or may point equally to two places, as his headquarters, and the connexion of domicile with law requires that a man shall always have a domicile, and never more than one. The former of these difficulties is met in the manner described by Lord Westbury inUdnyv.Udny(Law Reports, 1 House of Lords, Scottish Appeals). “It is,” he said, “a settled principle that no man shall be without a domicile, and to secure this end the law attributes to every individual as soon as he is born the domicile of his father, if the child be legitimate, and the domicile of his mother, if the child be illegitimate. This is called the domicile of origin, and is involuntary. It is the creation of the law, not of the party. It may be extinguished by act of law, as for example by sentence of death or exile for life, which destroys thestatus civilisof the criminal; but it cannot be destroyed by the will and act of the party. Domicile of choice is the creation of the party. When a domicile of choice is acquired, the domicile of origin is in abeyance, but is not absolutely extinguished or obliterated. When a domicile of choice is abandoned, the domicile of origin revives, a special intention to revert to it not being necessary. A natural-born Englishman may domicile himself in Holland, but if he breaks up his establishment there and quits Holland, declaring that he will never return, it is absurd to suppose that his Dutch domicile clings to him until he has set up his tabernacle elsewhere.” If to this we add that legitimate minors follow the changes of the father’s domicile and a married woman follows the domicile of her husband, also that compulsory detention will not create a domicile, the outlines of involuntary domicile will have been sufficiently sketched.

For the establishment of a domicile of choice there must be bothanimusandfactum, intention and fact. The fact need not be more than arrival in the territory of the new domicile if there be the necessary intention, while any number of years’ continuance there will not found a domicile if the necessary intention is absent. As the result of the most recent English and Scottish cases it may be laid down that the necessary intention is incompatible with the contemplation by the person in question of any event on theoccurrenceof which his residence in the territory in question would cease, and that if he has not formed a fixed and settled purpose of settling in that territory, at least his conduct and declarations must lead to the belief that he would have declared such a purpose if the necessity of making an election between that territory and his former one had arisen. The word territory, meaning a country having a certain legal system, is used advisedly, for neither the intention nor the fact need refer to a locality. It is possible that a Scotsman or a foreigner may have clearly established a domicile of choice in England, although it may be impossible to say whether London, Brighton or a house in the country is his true or principal residence. What is here laid down has been gradually attained. In the older English cases an intention to return to the former domicile was not excluded, if the event on which the return depended was highly uncertain and regarded by the person in question as remote. Afterwards a tendency towards the opposite extreme was manifested by requiring for a domicile of choice the intention to associate oneself with the ideas and habits of the new territory—Quatenus in illo exuere patriam, not in the political sense, which it was never attempted to connect with change of domicile, but in the social and legal sense. At present it is agreed that the only intention to be considered is that of residence, but that, if the intention to reside in the territory be proved to amount to what has been above stated, a domicile will be acquired from which the legal consequences will follow, even defeating intentions about them so clearly expressed as, for instance, by making a will which by reason of the change of domicile is invalid. The two most important cases areDouglasv.Douglas, 1871, L. R. 12 Equity 617, before Vice-chancellor Wickens, andWinansv.Att. Gen., 1904, Appeal Cases 287, before the House of Lords.

When the circumstances of a person’s life point to two territoriesas domiciles, the selection of the one which alone can fill that character often leads to appeals even up to the highest court. The residence of a man’s wife and family as contrasted with his place of business, his exercise of political or municipal functions, and any conduct which tends to connect his children with a given country, as by their education or the start given them in life, as well as other indications, are often cited as important; but none of them are in themselves decisive. The situation must be considered as a whole. When the question is between the domicile of origin and an alleged one of choice, its solution is rendered a little easier than it is when the question is between two alleged domiciles of choice, the burden of proof lying on the party which contends that the domicile of origin has been abandoned.

In the state of the law which has been described it will not be found surprising that an act of parliament, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 121, recites that by the operation of the law of domicile the expectation and belief of British subjects dying abroad with regard to the distribution of their property are often defeated, and enacts that when a convention to that effect has been made with any foreign country, no British subject dying in such country shall be deemed to have acquired a domicile therein, unless he has been resident in such country for one year previous to death and has made a declaration in writing of his intention to become domiciled; and that British subjects so dying without having so resided and made such declaration shall be deemed for all purposes of testate or intestate succession as to movables to retain the domicile they possessed at the time of going to reside in such foreign country. Similar exemptions are conferred on the subjects of the foreign state dying in Great Britain or Ireland. But the act does not apply to foreigners who have obtained letters of naturalization in any part of the British dominions. It has not been availed of, and is indeed an anachronism, ignoring as it does the fact that domicile has no longer a world-wide importance, owing to the substitution for it of political nationality as a test of private law in so many important countries. The United States of America is not one of those countries, but there the importance of domicile suffers from the habit of referring questions of capacity to the law of the place of contract instead of to any personal law.

Back to Index Next