Chapter XIII: Part 13

DANDOLO, the name of one of the most illustrious patrician families of Venice, of which the earliest recorded member was one of the electors of the first doge (A.D. 697). The Dandolo gave to Venice four doges; of these the first and most famous was Enrico Dandolo (c. 1120-1205), elected on the 1st of January 1193 (_more Veneto_, 1192). He had distinguished himself in various military enterprises and diplomatic negotiations in the course of an active career, and although over seventy years old and of very weak sight (the story that he had been made blind by the emperor Manuel Comnenus while he was at Constantinople is a legend), he proved a most energetic and capable ruler. His first care was to re-establish Venetian authority over the Dalmatians who had rebelled with the king of Hungary's protection, but he failed to capture Zara, owing to the arrival of the Pisan fleet, and although the latter was defeated by the Venetians, the undertaking was suspended. In the meanwhile the situation in the East was becoming critical. The Eastern emperor Isaac II. Angelus had been deposed, imprisoned, and blinded by his brother Alexius, who usurped the throne. The new emperor proved unfriendly to the Venetians and made difficulties about renewing their privileges. In the West a new crusade to the Holy Land was in preparation, and the crusaders sent ambassadors, one of whom was Villehardouin, the historian of the expedition, to ask the Venetians to give them passage and means of transport (1201). After much deliberation the republic agreed to transport 4500 horse and 29,000 foot to Palestine with provisions for one year, for a sum of 85,000 marks; in addition 50 Venetian galleys would be provided free of charge, while Venice was to receive half the conquests made by the crusaders. But as the time agreed upon for the departure approached, it appeared that the crusaders had not the money to pay the stipulated advance. Dandolo then proposed that if they helped him to reduce Zara payment might be deferred. Some of the crusaders disapproved of this attack on a Christian city, but the majority, only too glad of an opportunity for plunder, willingly agreed. The expedition sailed on the 8th of October 1202, three hundred sail in all, with the aged Dandolo himself in command. Zara was taken and pillaged, for which the Venetians were severely reprimanded by the pope. But new possibilities of conquest were now opened up at the suggestion of Alexius, the son of the deposed emperor Isaac. He promised the crusaders that if they went first to Constantinople and re-instated Isaac, the latter would maintain them for a year, contribute 10,000 men and 200,000 marks for the expedition to Egypt, and subject the Eastern to the Western Church. The proposal was accepted, largely owing to the influence of Dandolo, who saw in it a means for further extending the dominions and commerce of the Venetians. After wintering at Zara the fleet set sail on the 7th of April 1203, and on the 23rd of June anchored in the Bosporus. After long parleys the city was attacked by land and sea on the 17th of July (the fleet being commanded by Dandolo) and taken by storm. The emperor Alexius fled, and Isaac reoccupied the throne, but, although grateful to the crusaders, he was not disposed to fulfil the promises made by his son. Tumults between crusaders and Greeks arose, and the people of the city, excited by a certain Alexis Murzuphlus, murmured at the new taxes which were imposed on them. A revolt broke out, and an officer named Nicholas Canabus was placed on the throne; Prince Alexius was strangled by order of Murzuphlus, Isaac died of the shock, Murzuphlus imprisoned Canabus and made himself emperor (Alexius V.). The crusaders thereupon attacked Constantinople a second time (12th of April 1204), and after a desperate struggle captured the city, which they subjected to hideous carnage. Immense booty was secured, the Venetians obtaining among other treasures the four bronze horses which adorn the facade of St Mark's. The Eastern empire was abolished, and a feudal Latin empire erected in its stead. The leaders of the crusaders then met to elect an emperor. Dandolo was one of the candidates, but Count Baldwin of Flanders was elected and crowned on the 23rd of May. The Venetians were given Crete and several other islands and ports in the Levant, which formed an uninterrupted chain from Venice to the Black Sea, a large part of Constantinople (whence the doge assumed the title of "lord of a quarter and a half of Romania"), and many valuable privileges. But hardly had the new state been established when various provinces rose in rebellion and the Bulgarians invaded Thrace. A Latin army was defeated by them at Adrianople (April 1205), and the emperor himself was captured and killed, the fragments of the force being saved only by Dandolo's prowess. But he was now old and ill, and on the 23rd of June 1205 he died. He certainly consolidated Venice's dominion in the East and increased its commercial prosperity to a very high degree. But the policy he pursued in turning the crusaders against Constantinople, in order to promote the interests of the republic, while serving to break up the Greek empire, created in its place a Latin state that was far too feeble to withstand the onslaught of Greek national feeling and Orthodox fanaticism; at the same time the Greeks were greatly weakened and their power of resisting the Turks consequently lessened. This paved the way for the Turkish invasion of Europe, which proved an unmixed calamity for all Christendom, Venice included.

Enrico Dandolo's sons distinguished themselves in the public service, and his grandson Giovanni was doge from 1280 to 1289. The latter's son Andrea commanded the Venetian fleet in the war against Genoa in 1294, and, having been defeated and taken prisoner, he was so overwhelmed with shame that he committed suicide by beating his head against the mast (according to Andrea Navagero). Francesco Dandolo, also known as Dandolo Cane, was doge from 1329 to 1339. During his reign the Venetians went to war with Martino della Scala, lord of Verona, with the result that they occupied Treviso and otherwise extended their possessions on the _terra firma_. Andrea Dandolo (1307/10-1354), the last doge of the family, reigned from 1343 to 1354. He had been the first Venetian noble to take a degree at the university of Padua, where he had also been professor of jurisprudence. The terrible plague of 1348, wars with Genoa, against whom the great naval victory of Lojera was won in 1353, many treaties, and the subjugation of the seventh revolt of Zara, are the chief events of his reign. The poet Petrarch, who was the doge's intimate friend, was sent to Venice on a peace mission by Giovanni Visconti, lord of Milan. "Just, incorruptible, full of zeal and of love for his country, and at the same time learned, of rare eloquence, wise, affable, and humane," is the poet's verdict on Andrea Dandolo (_Varior. epist._ xix.). Dandolo died on the 7th of September 1354. He is chiefly famous as a historian, and his _Annals_ to the year 1280 are one of the chief sources of Venetian history for that period; they have been published by Muratori (_Rer. Ital. Script._ tom. xxi.). He also had a new code of laws compiled (issued in 1346) in addition to the statute of Jacopo Tiepolo.

Another well-known member of this family was Silvestro Dandolo (1796-1866), son of Girolamo Dandolo, who was the last admiral of the Venetian republic and died an Austrian admiral in 1847. Silvestro was an Italian patriot and took part in the revolution of 1848.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--S. Romanin, _Storia documentata di Venezia_ (Venice,
1853); among more recent books H. Kretschmayr's excellent _Geschichte
von Venedig_ (Gotha, 1905) should be consulted: it contains a
bibliography of the authorities and all the latest researches and
discoveries; C. Cipolla and G. Monticolo have published many essays
and editions of chronicles in the _Archivio Veneto_, and the "Fonti
per la Storia d'Italia," in the _Istituto storico italiano_; H.
Simonsfeld has written a life of _Andrea Dandolo_ in German (Munich,
1876). (L. V.*)

DANDOLO, VINCENZO, COUNT (1758-1819), Italian chemist and agriculturist, was born at Venice, of good family, though not of the same house as the famous doges, and began his career as a physician. He was a prominent opponent of the oligarchical party in the revolution which took place on the approach of Napoleon; and he was one of the envoys sent to seek the protection of the French. When the request was refused, and Venice was placed under Austria, he removed to Milan, where he was made member of the great council. In 1799, on the invasion of the Russians and the overthrow of the Cisalpine republic, Dandolo retired to Paris, where, in the same year, he published his treatise _Les Hommes nouveaux, ou moyen d'operer une regeneration nouvelle_. But he soon after returned to the neighbourhood of Milan, to devote himself to scientific agriculture. In 1805 Napoleon made him governor of Dalmatia, with the title of _provediteur general_, in which position Dandolo distinguished himself by his efforts to remove the wretchedness and idleness of the people, and to improve the country by draining the pestilential marshes and introducing better methods of agriculture. When, in 1809, Dalmatia was re-annexed to the Illyrian provinces, Dandolo returned to Venice, having received as his reward from the French emperor the title of count and several other distinctions. He died in his native city on the 13th of December 1819.

Dandolo published in Italian several treatises on agriculture,
vine-cultivation, and the rearing of cattle and sheep; a work on
silk-worms, which was translated into French by Fontanelle; a work on
the discoveries in chemistry which were made in the last quarter of
the 18th century (published 1796); and translations of several of the
best French works on chemistry.

DANDY, a word of uncertain origin which about 1813-1816 became a London colloquialism for the exquisite or fop of the period. It seems to have been in use on the Scottish border at the end of the 18th century, its full form, it is suggested, being "Jack-a-Dandy," which from 1659 had a sense much like its later one. It is probably ultimately derived from the French _dandin_, "a ninny or booby," but a more direct derivation was suggested at the time of the uprise of the Regency dandies. In _The Northampton Mercury_, under date of the 17th of April 1819, occurs the following: "Origin of the word 'dandy.' This term, which has been recently applied to a species of reptile very common in the metropolis, appears to have arisen from a small silver coin struck by King Henry VII., of little value, called a _dandiprat_; and hence Bishop Fleetwood observes the term is applied to worthless and contemptible persons."

It was Beau Brummel, the high-priest of fashion, who gave dandyism its great vogue. But before his day foppery in dress had become something more than the personal eccentricity which it had been in the Stuart days and earlier. About the middle of the 18th century was founded the Macaroni Club. This was a band of young men of rank who had visited Italy and sought to introduce the southern elegances of manner and dress into England. The Macaronis gained their name from their introduction of the Italian dish to English tables, and were at their zenith about 1772, when their costume is described as "white silk breeches, very tight coat and vest with enormous white neckcloths, white silk stockings and diamond-buckled red-heeled shoes." For some time the moving spirit of the club was Charles James Fox. It was with the advent of Brummel, however, that the cult of dandyism became a social force. Beau Brummel was supreme dictator in matters of dress, and the prince regent is said to have wept when he disapproved of the cut of the royal coat. Around the Beau collected a band of young men whose insolent and affected manners made them universally unpopular. Their chief glory was their clothes. They wore coats of blue or brown cloth with brass buttons, the coat-tails almost touching the heels. Their trousers were buckskin, so tight that it is said they "could only be taken off as an eel would be divested of his skin." A pair of highly-polished Hessian boots, a waistcoat buttoned incredibly tight so as to produce a small waist, and opening at the breast to exhibit the frilled shirt and cravat, completed the costume of the true dandy. Upon the Beau's disgrace and ruin, Lord Alvanley was regarded as leader of the dandies and "first gentleman in England." Though in many ways a worthier man than Brummel, his vanity exposed him to much derision, and he fought a duel on Wimbledon Common with Morgan O'Connell, who, in the House of Commons, had called him a "bloated buffoon." After 1825 "dandy" lost its invidious meaning, and came to be applied generally to those who were neat in dress rather than to those guilty of effeminacy.

See Barbey D'Aurevilly, _Du dandysme et de G. Brummel_ (Paris, 1887).

DANEGELD, an English national tax originally levied by Aethelred II. (the Unready) as a means of raising the tribute which was the price of the temporary cessation of the Danish ravages. This expedient of buying off the invader was first adopted in 991 ou the advice of certain great men of the kingdom. It was repeated in 994, 1002, 1007 and 1012. With the accession of the Danish king Canute, the original _raison d'etre_ of the tax ceased to exist, but it continued to be levied, though for a different purpose, assuming now the character of an occasional war-tax. It was exceedingly burdensome, and its abolition by Edward the Confessor in 1051 was welcomed as a great relief. William the Conqueror revived it immediately after his accession, as a convenient method of national taxation, and it was with the object of facilitating its collection that he ordered the compilation of Domesday Book. It continued to be levied until 1163, in which year the name Danegeld appears for the last time in the Rolls. Its place was taken by other imposts of similar character but different name.

DANELAGH, the name given to those districts in the north and north-east of England which were settled by Danes and other Scandinavian invaders during the period of the Viking invasions. The real settlement of England by Danes began in the year 866 with the appearance of a large army in East Anglia, which turned north in the following year. The Danes captured York and overthrew the Northumbrian kingdom, setting up a puppet king of their own. They encamped in Nottingham in 868, and Northern Mercia was soon in their hands; in 870 Edmund, king of the East Anglians, fell before them. During the next few years they maintained their hold on Mercia, and we have at this time coins minted in London with the inscription "Alfdene rex," the name of the Danish leader. In the winter of 874-875 they advanced as far north as the Tyne, and at the same time Cambridge was occupied. In the meantime the great struggle with Alfred the Great was being carried on. This was terminated by the peace of Wedmore in 878, when the Danes withdrew from Wessex and settled finally in East Anglia under their king Guthrum. This peace was finally and definitely ratified in the document known as the peace of Alfred and Guthrum, which is probably to be referred to the year 880. The peace determined the boundary of Guthrum's East Anglian kingdom. According to the terms of the agreement the boundary was to run along the Thames estuary to the mouth of the Lea (a few miles east of London), then up the Lea to its source near Leighton Buzzard, then due north to Bedford, then eastwards up the Ouse to Watling Street somewhere near Fenny or Stony Stratford. From this point the boundary is left undefined, perhaps because the kingdoms of Alfred and Guthrum ceased to be conterminous here, though if Northamptonshire was included in the kingdom of Guthrum, as seems likely, the boundary must be carried a few miles along Watling Street. Thus Northern Mercia, East Anglia, the greater part of Essex and Northumbria were handed over to the Danes and henceforth constitute the district known as the Danelagh.

The three chief divisions of the Danelagh were (1) the kingdom of Northumbria, (2) the kingdom of East Anglia, (3) the district of the Five (Danish) Boroughs--lands grouped round Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Stamford and Lincoln, and forming a loose confederacy. Of the history of the two Danish kingdoms we know very little. Guthrum of East Anglia died in 890, and later we hear of a king Eric or Eohric who died in 902. Another Guthrum was ruling there in the days of Edward the Elder. The history of the Northumbrian kingdom is yet more obscure. After an interregnum consequent on the death of Healfdene the kingdom passed in 883 to one Guthred, son of Hardicanute, who ruled till 894, when his realm was taken over by King Alfred, though probably only under a very loose sovereignty. It may be noted here that Northumbria north of the Tyne, the old Bernicia, seems never to have passed under Danish authority and rule, but to have remained in independence until the general submission to Edward in 924.

More is known of the history of the five boroughs. From 907 onwards Edward the Elder, working together with Aethelred of Mercia and his wife, worked for the recovery of the Danelagh. In that year Chester was fortified. In 911-912 an advance on Essex and Hertfordshire was begun. In 914 Buckingham was fortified and the Danes of Bedfordshire submitted. In 917 Derby was the first of the five boroughs to fall, followed by Leicester a few months later. In the same year after a keen struggle all the Danes belonging to the "borough" of Northampton, as far north as the Welland (i.e. the border of modern Northamptonshire), submitted to Edward and at the same time Colchester was fortified; a large portion of Essex submitted and the whole of the East Anglian Danes came in. Stamford was the next to yield, soon followed by Nottingham, and in 920 there was a general submission on the part of the Danes and the reconquest of the Danelagh was now complete.

Though the independent occupation of the Danelagh by Viking invaders did not last for more than fifty years at the outside, the Danes left lasting marks of their presence in these territories.

The divisions of the land are foreign not native. The grouping of shires round a county town as distinct from the old national shires is probably of Scandinavian origin, and so certainly is the division of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire into "ridings." In Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, part of Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutlandshire (of later formation) and Yorkshire we have the counties divided into "wapentakes" instead of "hundreds," again a mark of Danish influence.

When we turn to the social divisions we find in Domesday and other documents classes of society in these districts bearing purely Norse names, _dreng_, _karl_, _karlman_, _bonde_, _thrall_, _lysing_, _hold_; in the system of taxation we have an assessment by _carucates_ and not by hides and _virgates_, and the duodecimal rather than the decimal system of reckoning.

The highly developed Scandinavian legal system has also left abundant traces in this district. We may mention specially the institution of the "lawmen," whom we find as a judicial body in several of the towns in or near the Danelagh. They are found at Cambridge, Stamford, Lincoln, York and Chester. There can be no doubt that these "lawmen," who can be shown to form a close parallel to and indeed the ultimate source of our jury, were of Scandinavian origin. Many other legal terms can be definitely traced to Scandinavian sources, and they are first found in use in the district of the Danelagh.

The whole of the place nomenclature of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Northern Northamptonshire is Scandinavian rather than native English, and in the remaining districts of the Danelagh a goodly proportion of Danish place-names may be found. Their influence is also evident in the dialects spoken in these districts to the present day. It is probable that until the end of the 10th century Scandinavian dialects were almost the sole language spoken in the district of the Danelagh, and when English triumphed, after an intermediate bilingual state, large numbers of words were adopted from the earlier Scandinavian speech.

See _The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, edited by Earle and Plummer (Oxford,
1892-1899); J. C. H. R. Steenstrup, _Normannerne_ (4 vols.,
1876-1882); and A. Bugge, _Vikingerne_ (2 vols.). (A. Mw.)

DANGERFIELD, THOMAS (c. 1650-1685), English conspirator, was born about 1650 at Waltham, Essex, the son of a farmer. He began his career by robbing his father, and, after a rambling life, took to coining false money, for which offence and others he was many times imprisoned. False to everyone, he first tried to involve the duke of Monmouth and others by concocting information about a Presbyterian plot against the throne, and this having been proved a lie, he pretended to have discovered a Catholic plot against Charles II. This was known as the "Meal-tub Plot," from the place where the incriminating documents were hidden at his suggestion, and found by the king's officers by his information. Mrs Elizabeth Cellier,--in whose house the tub was,--almoner to the countess of Powis, who had befriended Dangerfield when he posed as a Catholic, was, with her patroness, actually tried for high treason and acquitted (1680). Dangerfield, when examined at the bar of the House of Commons, made other charges against prominent Papists, and attempted to defend his character by publishing, among other pamphlets, _Dangerfield's Narrative_. This led to his trial for libel, and on the 29th of June 1685 he received sentence to stand in the pillory on two consecutive days, be whipped from Aldgate to Newgate, and two days later from Newgate to Tyburn. On his way back he was struck in the eye with a cane by a barrister, Robert Francis, and died shortly afterwards from the blow. The barrister was, tried and executed for the murder.

DANIEL, the name given to the central figure[1] of the biblical Book of Daniel (see below), which is now generally regarded as a production dating from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). There are no means of ascertaining anything definite concerning the origin of the hero Daniel. The account of him in Dan. i. has been generally misunderstood. According to i. 3, the Babylonian chief eunuch was commanded to bring "certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the nobles" to serve in the court. Many commentators have considered this to mean that some of the children were of the royal Judaean line of Jewish noble families, an interpretation which is not justified by the wording of the passage, which contains nothing to indicate that the author meant to convey the idea that Daniel was either royal or noble. Josephus,[2] never doubting the historicity of Daniel, made the prophet a relative of Zedekiah and consequently of Jehoiakim, a conclusion which he apparently drew from the same passage, i. 3. Pseudo-Epiphanius,[3] again, probably having the same source in mind, thought that Daniel was a Jewish noble. The true Epiphanius[4] even gives the name of his father as Sabaan, and states that the prophet was born at Upper Beth-Horon, a village near Jerusalem. The after life and death of the seer are as obscure as his origin. The biblical account throws no light on the subject. According to the rabbis,[5] Daniel went back to Jerusalem with the return of the captivity, and is supposed to have been one of the founders of the mythical Great Synagogue. Other traditions affirm that he died and was buried in Babylonia in the royal vault, while the Jewish traveller Benjamin of Tudela (12th cent. A.D.) was shown his tomb in Susa, which is also mentioned by the Arab, Abulfaragius (Bar-hebraeus). The author of _Daniel_ did not pretend to give any sketch of the prophet's career, but was content merely with making him the central figure, around which to group more or less disconnected narratives and accounts of visions. In view of these facts, and also of the generally inaccurate character of all the historical statements in the work, there is really no evidence to prove even the existence of the Daniel described in the book bearing his name.

The question at once arises as to where the Maccabaean author of _Daniel_ could have got the name and personality of his Daniel. It is not probable that he could have invented both name and character. There is an allusion in the prophet Ezekiel (xiv. 14, 20, xxviii. 3) to a Daniel whom he places as a great personality between Noah and Job. But this could not be our Daniel, whom Ezekiel, probably a man of ripe age at the time of the Babylonian deportation of the Jews, would hardly have mentioned in the same breath with two such characters, much less have put him _between_ them, because, had the Daniel of the biblical book existed at this time, he would have been a mere boy, lacking any such distinction as to make him worthy of so high a mention. It is evident that Ezekiel considered his Daniel to be a celebrated ancient prophet, concerning whose date and origin, however, there is not a single trace to guide research. Hitzig's[6] conjecture that the Daniel of Ezekiel was Melchizedek is quite without foundation. The most that can be said in this connexion is that there may really have been a spiritual leader of the captive Jews who resided at Babylon and who was either named Daniel, perhaps after the unknown patriarch mentioned by Ezekiel, or to whom the same name had been given in the course of tradition by some historical confusion of persons. Following this hypothesis, it must be assumed that the fame of this Judaeo-Babylonian leader had been handed down through the unclear medium of oral tradition until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when some gifted Jewish author, feeling the need of producing a work which should console his people in their affliction under the persecutions of that monarch, seized upon the personality of the seer who lived during a time of persecution bearing many points of resemblance to that of Antiochus IV., and moulded some of the legends than extant about the life and activity of this misty prophet into such a form as should be best suited to a didactic purpose.[7]

DANIEL, BOOK OF.--The Book of Daniel stands between Ezra and Esther in the third great division of the Hebrew Bible known as the _Hagiographa_, in which are classed all works which were not regarded as being part of the Law or the Prophets. The book presents the unusual peculiarity of being written in two languages, i.-ii. 4 and viii.-xii. being in Hebrew, while the text of ii. 4-vii. is the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic.[8] The subject matter, however, falls naturally into two divisions which are not co-terminous with the linguistic sections; viz. i.-vi. and vii.-xii. The first of these sense-divisions deals only with narratives regarding the reign of Nebuchadrezzar and his supposed son Belshazzar, while the second section consists exclusively of apocalyptic prophecies. There can be no doubt that a definite plan was followed in the arrangement of the work. The author's object was clearly to demonstrate to his readers the necessity of faith in Israel's God, who shall not for ever allow his chosen ones to be ground under the heel of a ruthless heathen oppressor. To illustrate this, he makes use on the one hand (i.-vi.) of carefully chosen narratives, somewhat loosely connected it is true, but all treating substantially the same subject,--the physical triumph of God's servant over his unbelieving enemies; and on the other hand (vii.-xii.), he introduces certain prophetic visions illustrative of God's favour towards the same servant, Daniel. So carefully is this record of the visions arranged that the first two chapters of the second part of the book (vii.-viii.) were no doubt purposely made to appear in a symbolic form, in order that in the last two revelations (xi.-xii.), which were couched in such direct language as to be intelligible even to the modern student of history, the author might obtain the effect of a climax. The book is probably not therefore a number of parts of different origin thrown loosely together by a careless editor, who does not deserve the title of author.[9] The more or less disconnected sections of the first part of the work were probably so arranged purposely, in order to facilitate its diffusion at a time when books were known to the people at large chiefly by being read aloud in public.

Various attempts have been made to explain the sudden change from Hebrew to Aramaic in ii. 4. It was long thought, for example, that Aramaic was the vernacular of Babylonia and was consequently employed as the language of the parts relating to that country. But this was not the case, because the Babylonian language survived until a later date than that of the events portrayed in Daniel.[10] Nor is it possible to follow the theory of Merx, that Aramaic, which was the popular tongue of the day when the Book of Daniel was written, was therefore used for the simpler narrative style, while the more learned Hebrew was made the idiom of the philosophical portions.[11] The first chapter, which is just as much in the narrative style as are the following Aramaic sections, is in Hebrew, while the distinctly apocalyptic chapter vii. is in Aramaic. A third view, that the bilingual character of the work points to a time when both languages were used indifferently, is equally unsatisfactory,[12] because it is highly questionable whether two idioms can ever be used quite indifferently. In fact, a hybrid work in two languages would be a literary monstrosity. In view of the apparent unity of the entire work, the only possible explanation seems to be that the book was written at first all in Hebrew, but for the convenience of the general reader whose vernacular was Aramaic, a translation, possibly from the same pen as the original, was made into Aramaic. It must be supposed then that, certain parts of the original Hebrew manuscript being lost, the missing places were supplied from the current Aramaic translation.[13]

It cannot be denied in the light of modern historical research that if the Book of Daniel be regarded as pretending to full historical authority, the biblical record is open to all manner of attack. It is now the general opinion of most modern scholars who study the Old Testament from a critical point of view that this work cannot possibly have originated, according to the traditional theory, at any time during the Babylonian monarchy, when the events recorded are supposed to have taken place.

The chief reasons for such a conclusion are as follows.[14]

1. The position of the book among the _Hagiographa_, instead of among the Prophetical works, seems to show that it was introduced after the closing of the Prophetical Canon. Some commentators have believed that Daniel was not an actual prophet in the proper sense, but only a seer, or else that he had no official standing as a prophet and that therefore the book was not entitled to a place among official prophetical books. But if the work had really been in existence at the time of the completion of the second part of the canon, the collectors of the prophetical writings, who in their care did not neglect even the parable of Jonah, would hardly have ignored the record of so great a prophet as Daniel is represented to have been.

2. Jesus ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), who wrote about 200-180 B.C., in his otherwise complete list of Israel's leading spirits (xlix.), makes no mention of Daniel. Hengstenberg's plea that Ezra and Mordecai were also left unmentioned has little force, because Ezra appears in the book bearing his name as nothing more than a prominent priest and scholar, while Daniel is represented as a great prophet.

3. Had the Book of Daniel been extant and generally known after the time of Cyrus (537-529 B.C.), it would be natural to look for some traces of its power among the writings of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, whose works, however, show no evidence that either the name or the history of Daniel was known to these authors. Furthermore, the manner in which the prophets are looked back upon in ix. 6-10 cannot fail to suggest an extremely late origin for the book. Besides this, a careful study of ix. 2 seems to indicate that the Prophetical Canon was definitely completed at the time when the author of Daniel wrote. It is also highly probable that much of the material in the second part of the book was suggested by the works of the later prophets, especially by Ezekiel and Zechariah.

4. Some of the beliefs set forth in the second part of the book also practically preclude the possibility of the author having lived at the courts of Nebuchadrezzar and his successors. Most noticeable among these doctrines is the complete system of angelology consistently followed out in the Book of Daniel, according to which the management of human affairs is entrusted to a regular hierarchy of commanding angels, two of whom, Gabriel and Michael, are even mentioned by name. Such an idea was distinctly foreign to the primitive Israelitish conception of the indivisibility of Yahweh's power, and must consequently have been a borrowed one. It could certainly not have come from the Babylonians, however, whose system of attendant spirits was far from being so complete as that which is set forth in the Book of Daniel, but rather from Persian sources where a more complicated angelology had been developed. As many commentators have brought out, there can be little doubt that the doctrine of angels in Daniel is an indication of prolonged Persian influence. Furthermore, it is now very generally admitted that the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which is advanced for the first time in the Old Testament in Daniel, also originated among the Persians,[15] and could only have been engrafted on the Jewish mind after a long period of intercourse with the Zoroastrian religion, which came into contact with the Jewish thinkers considerably after the time of Nebuchadrezzar.

5. All the above evidences are merely internal, but we are now able to draw upon the Babylonian historical sources to prove that Daniel could not have originated at the time of Nebuchadrezzar. There can be no doubt that the author of Daniel thought that Belshazzar (q.v.), who has now been identified beyond all question with _Bel-sar-uzur_, the son of Nabonidus, the last Semitic king of Babylon, was the son of Nebuchadrezzar, and that Belshazzar attained the rank of king.[16] This prince did not even come from the family of Nebuchadrezzar. Nabonidus, the father of Belshazzar, was the son of a nobleman _Nabu-baladsu-iqbi_, who was in all probability not related to any of the preceding kings of Babylon. Had Nabonidus been descended from Nebuchadrezzar he could hardly have failed in his records, which we possess, to have boasted of such a connexion with the greatest Babylonian monarch; yet in none of his inscriptions does he trace his descent beyond his father. Certain expositors have tried to obviate the difficulty, first by supposing that the expression "son of Nebuchadrezzar" in Daniel means "descendant" or "son," a view which is rendered untenable by the facts just cited. This school has also endeavoured to prove that the author of Daniel did not mean to imply Belshazzar's kingship of Babylon at all by his use of the word "king," but they suggest that the writer of Daniel believed Belshazzar to have been co-regent. If Belshazzar had ever held such a position, which is extremely unlikely in the absence of any evidence from the cuneiform documents, he would hardly have been given the unqualified title "king of Babylon" as occurs in Daniel.[17] For example, Cambyses, son of Cyrus, was undoubtedly co-regent and bore the title "king of Babylon" during his father's lifetime, but, in a contract which dates from the first year of Cambyses, it is expressly stated that Cyrus was still "king of the lands." This should be contrasted with Dan. viii. 1, where reference is made to the "third year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon" without any allusion to another over-ruler. Such attempts are at best subterfuges to support an impossible theory regarding the origin of the Book of Daniel, whose author clearly believed in the kingship of Belshazzar and in that prince's descent from Nebuchadrezzar.

Furthermore, the writer of Daniel asserts (v. 1) that a monarch "Darius the Mede" received the kingdom of Babylon after the fall of the native Babylonian house, although it is evident, from i. 21, x. 1, that the biblical author was perfectly aware of the existence of Cyrus.[18] The fact that in no other scriptural passage is mention made of any Median ruler between the last Semitic king of Babylon and Cyrus, and the absolute silence of the authoritative ancient authors regarding such a king, make it apparent that the late author of Daniel is again in error in this particular. It is known that Cyrus became master of Media by conquering Astyages, and that the troops of the king of Persia capturing Babylon took Nabonidus prisoner with but little difficulty. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to identify this mythical Darius with the Cyaxares, son of Astyages, of Xenophon's _Cyropaedia_, and also with the Darius of Eusebius, who was in all probability Darius Hystaspis. There is not only no room in history for this Median king of the Book of Daniel, but it is also highly likely that the interpolation of "Darius the Mede" was caused by a confusion of history, due both to the destruction of the Assyrian capital Nineveh by the Medes, sixty-eight years before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, and also to the fame of the later king, Darius Hystaspis, a view which was advanced as early in the history of biblical criticism as the days of the Benedictine monk, Marianus Scotus. It is important to note in this connexion that Darius the Mede is represented as the son of Xerxes (Ahasuerus) and it is stated that he established 120 satrapies. Darius Hystaspis was the father of Xerxes, and according to Herodotus (iii. 89) established twenty satrapies. Darius the Mede entered into possession of Babylon after the death of Belshazzar; Darius Hystaspis conquered Babylon from the hands of certain rebels (Her. iii. 153-160). In fine, the interpolation of a Median Darius must be regarded as the most glaring historical inaccuracy of the author of Daniel. In fact, this error of the author alone is proof positive that he must have lived at a very late period, when the record of most of the earlier historical events had become hopelessly confused and perverted.

With these chief reasons why the Book of Daniel cannot have originated in the Babylonian period, if the reader will turn more especially to the apocalyptic sections (vii.-xii.), it will be quite evident that the author is here giving a detailed account of historical events which may easily be recognized through the thin veil of prophetic mystery thrown lightly around them. It is indeed highly suggestive that just those occurrences which are the most remote from the assumed standpoint of the writer are the most correctly stated, while the nearer we approach the author's supposed time, the more inaccurate does he become. It is quite apparent that the predictions in the Book of Daniel centre on the period of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.), when that Syrian prince was endeavouring to suppress the worship of Yahweh and substitute for it the Greek religion.[19] There can be no doubt, for example, that in the "Little Horn" of vii. 8, viii. 9, and the "wicked prince" described in ix.-x., who is to work such evil among the saints, we have clearly one and the same person. It is now generally recognized that the king symbolized by the Little Horn, of whom it is said that he shall come of one of four kingdoms which shall be formed from the Greek empire after the death of its first king (Alexander), can be none other than Antiochus Epiphanes, and in like manner the references in ix. must allude to the same prince. It seems quite clear that xi. 21-45 refers to the evil deeds of Antiochus IV. and his attempts against the Jewish people and the worship of Yahweh. In xii. follows the promise of salvation from the same tyrant, and, strikingly enough, the predictions in this last section, x.-xii., relating to future events, become inaccurate as soon as the author finishes the section describing the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The general style of all these prophecies differs materially from that of all other prophetic writings in the Old Testament. Other prophets confine themselves to vague and general predictions, but the author of Daniel is strikingly particular as to detail in everything relating to the period in which he lived, i.e. the reign of Antiochus IV. Had the work been composed during the Babylonian era, it would be more natural to expect prophecies of the return of the exiled Jews to Palestine, as in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah, rather than the acclamation of an ideal Messianic kingdom such as is emphasized in the second part of Daniel.

As a specimen of the apocalyptic method followed in Daniel, the celebrated prophecy of the seventy weeks (ix. 24-27) may be cited, a full discussion of which will be found in Prince, _Daniel_ 157-161. According to Jer. xxv. 11-12, the period of Israel's probation and trial was to last seventy years. In the angelic explanation in Daniel of Jeremiah's prophecy, these years were in reality year-weeks, which indicated a period of 490 years. This is the true apocalyptic system. The author takes a genuine prophecy, undoubtedly intended by Jeremiah to refer simply to the duration of the Babylonian captivity, and, by means of a purely arbitrary and mystical interpretation, makes it denote the entire period of Israel's degradation down to his own time. This prophecy is really nothing more than an extension of the vision of the 2300 evening-mornings of viii. 14, and of the "time, times and a half a time" of vii. 25. The real problem is as to the beginning and end of this epoch, which is divided into three periods of uneven length; viz. one of seven weeks; one of sixty-two weeks; and the last of one week. It seems probable that the author of Daniel, like the Chronicler, began his period with the fall of Jerusalem in 586. His first seven weeks, therefore, ending with the rule of "Messiah the Prince,"[20] probably Joshua ben Jozadak, the first high-priest after the exile (Ezra iii. 2), seem to coincide exactly with the duration of the Babylon exile, i.e. forty-nine years.

The second period of the epoch, during which Jerusalem is to be peopled and built, and at the end of which the Messiah is to be cut off, is much more difficult to determine. The key to the problem lies undoubtedly in the last statement regarding the overthrow of the Messiah or Anointed One. Such a reference coming from a Maccabean author can only allude to the deposition by Antiochus IV. of the high-priest Onias III., which took place about 174 B.C., and the Syrian king's subsequent murder of the same person not later than 171 (2 Macc. iv. 33-36). The difficulty now arises that between 537 and 171 there are only 366 years instead of the required number 434. It was evidently not the author's intention to begin the second period of sixty weeks simultaneously with the first period, as some expositors have thought, because the whole passage shows conclusively that he meant seventy independent weeks. Besides, nothing is gained by such a device, which would bring the year of the end of the second period down to the meaningless date 152, too late to refer to Onias. Cornill therefore adopted the only tenable theory regarding the problem; viz. that the author of Daniel did not know the chronology between 537 and 312, the establishment of the Seleucid era, and consequently made the period too long. A parallel case is the much quoted example of Demetrius, who placed the fall of Samaria (722 B.C.) 573 years before the succession of Ptolemy IV. (222), thus making an error of seventy-three years. Josephus, who places the reign of Cyrus forty to fifty years too early, makes a similar error.

The last week is divided into two sections (26-27), in the first of which the city and sanctuary shall be destroyed and in the second the daily offering is to be suspended. All critical scholars recognize the identity of this second half-week with the "time, times and a half a time" of vii. 25. This last week must, therefore, end with the restoration of the temple worship in 164 B.C.

This whole prophecy, which is perhaps the most interesting in the Book of Daniel, presents problems which can never be thoroughly understood, first because the author must have been ignorant of both history and chronology, and secondly, because, in his effort to be as mystical as possible, he purposely made use of indefinite and vague expressions which render the criticism of the passage a most unsatisfactory task.

The Book of Daniel loses none of its beauty and force because we are bound, in the light of modern criticism, to consider it as a production of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, nor should conservative Bible-readers lament because the historical accuracy of the work is thus destroyed. The influence of the work was very great on the subsequent development of Christianity, but it was not the influence of the _history_ contained in it which made itself felt, but rather of that sublime hope for a future deliverance of which the author of Daniel never lost sight. The allusion to the book by Jesus (Matt. xxiv. 15) shows merely that our Lord was referring to the work by its commonly accepted title, and implies no authoritative utterance with regard to its date or authorship. Our Lord simply made use of an apt quotation from a well-known work in order to illustrate and give additional force to his own prediction. If the book be properly understood, it must not only be admitted that the author made no pretence at accuracy of detail, but also that his prophecies were clearly intended to be merely an historical resume, clothed for the sake of greater literary vividness in a prophetic garb. The work, which is certainly not a forgery, but only a consolatory political pamphlet, is just as powerful, viewed according to the author's evident intention, as a consolation to God's people in their dire distress at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, as if it were, what an ancient but mistaken tradition had made it, really an accurate account of events which took place at the close of the Babylonian period.[21]

LITERATURE.--See bibliography in Bevan, _Daniel_ 9, and add
Kamphausen, _Dan._, in Haupt's _Sacred Books of the Old Testament_;
Behrmann, _Dan._ (1894); J. D. Prince, _Dan._ (1899); G. A. Barton,
"The Compilation of the Book of Daniel," in _Journ. Bibl. Lit._
(1898), 62-86, against the unity of the book, &c., &c.; J. D. Davis,
"Persian Words and the Date of O.T. Documents," in _Old Testament and
Semitic Studies: in Memory of W. R. Harper_ (Chicago, 1908).
(J. D. Pr.)

ADDITIONS TO DANIEL.--The "additions to Daniel" are three in number: _Susannah and the Elders_, _Bel and the Dragon_, and _The Song of the Three Children_. Of these the two former have no organic connexion with the text. The case is otherwise with regard to the last. In some respects it helps to fill up a gap in the canonical text between verses 23 and 24 of chapter iii. And yet we find Polychronius, early in the 5th century, stating that this song was not found in the Syriac version.

_Susannah._--This addition was placed by Theodotion before chap. i., and Bel and the Dragon at its close, whereas by the Septuagint and the Vulgate it was reckoned as chap. xiii. after the twelve canonical chapters, Bel and the Dragon as xiv. Theodotion's version is the source of the Peshitto and the Vulgate, for all three additions, and the Septuagint is the source of the Syro-Hexaplaric which has been published by Ceriani (_Mon. Sacr._ vii.). The legend recounts how that in the early days of the Captivity Susannah, the beautiful and pious wife of the rich Joakim, was walking in her garden and was there seen by two elders who were also judges. Inflamed with lust, they made infamous proposals to her, and when repulsed they brought against her a false charge of adultery. When brought before the tribunal she was condemned to death and was on the way to execution, when Daniel interposed and, by cross-questioning the accusers apart, convinced the people of the falsity of the charge.

The source of the story may, according to Ewald (_Gesch._^3 iv. 636), have been suggested by the Babylonian legend of the seduction of two old men by the goddess of love (see also Koran, _Sur._ ii. 96). Another and much more probable origin of the work is that given by Brull (_Das apocr. Susanna-Buch_, 1877) and Ball (_Speaker's Apocr._ ii. 323-331). The first half of the story is based on a tradition--originating possibly in Jer. xxix. 21-32 and found in the Talmud and Midrash--of two elders Ahab and Zedekiah, who in the Captivity led certain women astray under the delusion that they should thereby become the mother of the Messiah. But the most interesting part of the investigation is concerned with the latter half of the story, which deals with the trial. The characteristics of this section point to its composition about 100-90 B.C., when Simon ben Shetah was president of the Sanhedrin. Its object was to support the attempts of the Pharisees to bring about a reform in the administration of the law courts. According to Sadducean principles the man who was convicted of falsely accusing another of a capital offence was not put to death unless his victim was already executed. The Pharisees held that the intention of the accusers was equivalent to murder. Our apocryph upholds the Pharisaic contention. As Simon ben Shetah insisted on a rigorous examination of the witnesses, so does our writer: as he and his party required that the perjurer should suffer the same penalty he sought to inflict on another, so our writer represents the death penalty as inflicted on the perjured elders.

The language was in all probability Semitic-Hebrew or Aramaic. The paronomasiae in the Greek in verses 54-55 ([Greek: hupo schinon ... schisei]) and 58-59 ([Greek: hupo prinon ... prisei]) present no cogent difficulty against this view; for they may be accidental and have arisen for the first time in the translation. But as Brull and Ball have shown (see _Speaker's Apocr._ ii. 324), the same paronomasiae are possible either in Hebrew or Aramaic.

LITERATURE.--Ball in the _Speaker's Apocr._ ii. 233 sqq.; Schurer,
_Gesch._^3 iii. 333; Rothstein in Kautzsch's _Apocr. u. Pseud._ i. 176
sqq.; Kamphausen in _Ency. Bib._; Marshall in Hastings' _Bible Dict._;
Toy in the _Jewish Encyc._

_Bel and the Dragon._--We have here two independent narratives, in both of which Daniel appears as the destroyer of heathenism. The latter had a much wider circulation than the former, and is most probably a Judaized form of the old Semitic myth of the destruction of the old dragon, which represents primeval chaos (see Ball, _Speaker's Apocr._ ii. 346-348; Gunkel, _Schopfung und Chaos_, 320-323). Marduk destroys Tiamat in a similar manner to that in which Daniel destroys the dragon (Delitzsch, _Das babylonische Weltschopfung Epos_), by driving a storm-wind into the dragon which rends it asunder. Marshall (Hastings' _Bib. Dict._ i. 267) suggests that the "pitch" of the Greek (Aramaic [Aramaic: zifa]) arose from the original term for storm-wind ([Aramaic: zafa]).

The Greek exists in two recensions, those of the Septuagint and Theodotion. Most scholars maintain a Greek original, but this is by no means certain. Marshall (Hastings' _Bib Dict._ i. 268) argues for an Aramaic, and regards Gasters's Aramaic text [_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_ (1894), pp. 280-290, 312-317; (1895) 75-94] as of primary value in this respect, but this is doubtful.

LITERATURE.--Fritzsche's _Handbuch zu den Apoc._; Ball in the
_Speaker's Apocr._ ii. 344 sqq.; Schurer,^3 _Gesch._ iii. 332 sqq.; and
the articles in the _Ency. Bibl., Bible Dict._, and _Jewish Encyc._

The Greek text is best given in Swete iii., and the Syriac will be
found in Walton's _Polyglot_, Lagarde and Neubauer's _Tobit_.