Chapter XVIII: Part 18

The number of tributaries is given by Aristophanes as 1000, but this is greatly in excess of those named in the tribute lists. Some authorities give 200; others put it as high as 290. The difficulty is increased by the fact that in some cases several towns were grouped together in one payment ([Greek: synteleis]). These were grouped into five main geographical divisions (from 443 to 436; afterwards four, Caria being merged in Ionia). Each division was represented by two elective assessment commissioners ([Greek: taktai]), who assisted the Boule at Athens in the quadrennial division of the tribute. Each city sent in its own assessment before the [Greek: taktai], who presented it to the Boule. If there was any difference of opinion the matter was referred to the Ecclesia for settlement. In the Ecclesia a private citizen might propose another assessment, or the case might be referred to the law courts. The records of the tribute are preserved in the so-called quota lists, which give the names of the cities and the proportion, one-sixtieth, of their several tributes, which was paid to Athens. No tribute was paid by members of a _cleruchy_ (q.v.), as we find from the fact that the tribute of a city always decreased when a cleruchy was planted in it. This highly organized financial system must have been gradually evolved, and no doubt reached its perfection only after the treasury was transferred to Athens.

_Government and Jurisdiction._--There is much difference of opinion among scholars regarding the attitude of imperial Athens towards her allies. Grote maintained that on the whole the allies had little ground for complaint; but in so doing he rather seems to leave out of account the Greek's dislike of external discipline. The very fact that the hegemony had become an empire was enough to make the new system highly offensive to the allies. No very strong argument can be based on the paucity of actual revolts. The indolent Ionians had seen the result of secession at Naxos and rebellion at Thasos; the Athenian fleet was perpetually on guard in the Aegean. On the other hand among the mainland cities revolt was frequent; they were ready to rebel [Greek: kai para dynamin]. Therefore, even though Athenian domination may have been highly salutary in its effects, there can be no doubt that the allies did not regard it with affection.

To judge only by the negative evidence of the decree of Aristoteles which records the terms of alliance of the second confederacy (below), we gather that in the later period at least of the first league's history the Athenians had interfered with the local autonomy of the allies in various ways--an inference which is confirmed by the terms of "alliance" which Athens imposed on Erythrae, Chalcis and Miletus. Though it appears that Athens made individual agreements with various states, and therefore that we cannot regard as general rules the terms laid down in those which we possess, it is undeniable that the Athenians planted garrisons under permanent Athenian officers ([Greek: phrourarchoi]) in some cities. Moreover the practice among Athenian settlers of acquiring land in the allied districts must have been vexatious to the allies, the more so as all important cases between Athenians and citizens of allied cities were brought to Athens. Even on the assumption that the Athenian dicasteries were scrupulously fair in their awards, it must have been peculiarly galling to the self-respect of the allies and inconvenient to individuals to be compelled to carry cases to Athens and Athenian juries. Furthermore we gather from the Aristoteles inscription and from the 4th-century orators that Athens imposed democratic constitutions on her allies; indeed Isocrates (_Paneg._, 106) takes credit for Athens on this ground, and the charter of Erythrae confirms the view (cf. Arist. _Polit._, viii., vi. 9 1307 b 20; Thuc. viii. 21, 48, 64, 65). Even though we admit that Chios, Lesbos and Samos (up to 440) retained their oligarchic governments and that Selymbria, at a time (409 B.C.) when the empire was _in extremis_, was permitted to choose its own constitution, there can be no doubt that, from whatever motive and with whatever result, Athens did exercise over many of her allies an authority which extended to the most intimate concerns of local administration.

Thus the great attempt on the part of Athens to lead a harmonious league of free Greek states for the good of Hellas degenerated into an empire which proved intolerable to the autonomous states of Greece. Her failure was due partly to the commercial jealousy of Corinth working on the dull antipathy of Sparta, partly to the hatred of compromise and discipline which was fatally characteristic of Greece and especially of Ionian Greece, and partly also to the lack of tact and restraint shown by Athens and her representatives in her relations with the allies.

_The Second League._--The conditions which led to the second Athenian or Delian Confederacy were fundamentally different, not only in virtue of the fact that the allies had learned from experience the dangers to which such a league was liable, but because the enemy was no longer an oriental power of whose future action there could be no certain anticipation, but Sparta, whose ambitious projects since the fall of Athens had shown that there could be no safety for the smaller states save in combination.

There can be no reasonable doubt that as soon as the Athenians began to recover from the paralysing effect of the victory of Lysander and the internal troubles in which they were involved by the government of the Thirty, their thoughts turned to the possibility of recovering their lost empire. The first step in the direction was the recovery of their sea-power, which was effected by the victory of Conon at Cnidus (August 394 B.C.). Gradually individual cities which had formed part of the Athenian empire returned to their alliance with Athens, until the Spartans had lost Rhodes, Cos, Nisyrus, Teos, Chios, Mytilene, Ephesus, Erythrae, Lemnos, Imbros, Scyros, Eretria, Melos, Cythera, Carpathus and Delos. Sparta had only Sestos and Abydos of all that she had won by the battle of Aegospotami. At the same time no systematic constructive attempt at a renewal of empire can as yet be detected. Athenian relations were with individual states only, and the terms of alliance were various. Moreover, whereas Persia had been for several years aiding Athens against Sparta, the revolt of the Athenian ally Evagoras (q.v.) of Cyprus set them at enmity, and with the secession of Ephesus, Cnidus and Samos in 391 and the civil war in Rhodes, the star of Sparta seemed again to be in the ascendant. But the whole position was changed by the successes of Thrasybulus, who brought over the Odrysian king Medocus and Seuthes of the Propontis to the Athenian alliance, set up a democracy in Byzantium and reimposed the old 10% duty on goods from the Black Sea. Many of the island towns subsequently came over, and from inscriptions at Clazomenae (_C.I.A._ ii. 14_b_) and Thasos (_C.I.A._ iv. 11_b_) we learn that Thrasybulus evidently was deliberately aiming at a renewal of the empire, though the circumstances leading to his death at Aspendus when seeking to raise money suggest that he had no general backing in Athens.

The peace of Antalcidas or the King's Peace (see ANTALCIDAS; SPARTA) in 386 was a blow to Athens in the interests of Persia and Sparta. Antalcidas compelled the Athenians to give their assent to it only by making himself master of the Hellespont by stratagem with the aid of Dionysius the Elder of Syracuse. By this peace all the Greek cities on the mainland of Asia with the islands of Cyprus and Clazomenae were recognized as Persian, all other cities except Imbros, Lemnos and Scyros as autonomous. Directly, this arrangement prevented an Athenian empire; indirectly, it caused the sacrificed cities and their kinsmen on the islands to look upon Athens as their protector. The gross selfishness of the Spartans, herein exemplified, was emphasized by their capture of the Theban citadel, and, after their expulsion, by the raid upon Attica in time of peace by the Spartan Sphodrias, and his immunity from punishment at Sparta (summer of 378 B.C.). The Athenians at once invited their allies to a conference, and the Second Athenian Confederacy was formed in the archonship of Nausinicus on the basis of the famous decree of Aristoteles. Those who attended the conference were probably Athens, Chios, Mytilene, Methymna, Rhodes, Byzantium, Thebes, the latter of which joined Athens soon after the Sphodrias raid. In the spring of 377 invitations were sent out to the maritime cities. Some time in that year Tenedos, Chios, Chalcis in Euboea, and probably the Euboean cities Eretria, Carystus and Arethusa gave in their adherence, followed by Perinthus, Peparethus, Sciathus and other maritime cities.

At this point Sparta was roused to a sense of the significance of the new confederacy, and the Athenian corn supply was threatened by a Spartan fleet of sixty triremes. The Athenians immediately fitted out a fleet under Chabrias, who gained a decisive victory over the Spartans between Naxos and Paros (battle of Naxos 376 B.C.), both of which were added to the league. Proceeding northwards in 375 Chabrias brought over a large number of the Thraceward towns, including Abdera, Thasos and Samothrace. It is interesting to notice that a garrison was placed in Abdera in direct contravention of the terms of the new confederacy (Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._, v. 394). About the same time the successes of Timotheus in the west resulted in the addition to the league of Corcyra and the cities of Cephallenia, and his moderation induced the Acarnanians and Alcetas, the Molossian king, to follow their example. Once again Sparta sent out a fleet, but Timotheus in spite of financial embarrassment held his ground. By this time, however, the alliance between Thebes and Athens was growing weaker, and Athens, being short of money, concluded a peace with Sparta (probably in July 374), by which the peace of Antalcidas was confirmed and the two states recognized each other as mistress of sea and land respectively. Trouble, however, soon arose over Zacynthus, and the Spartans not only sent help to the Zacynthian oligarchs but even besieged Corcyra (373). Timotheus was sent to relieve the island, but shortness of money compelled him to search for new allies, and he spent the summer of 373 in persuading Jason of Pherae (if he had not already joined), and certain towns in Thrace, the Chersonese, the Propontis and the Aegean to enrol themselves. This delay in sending help to Corcyra was rightly or wrongly condemned by the Athenians, who dismissed Timotheus in favour of Iphicrates. The expedition which followed produced negative successes, but the absence of any positive success and the pressure of financial difficulty, coupled with the defection of Jason (probably before 371), and the high-handed action of Thebes in destroying Plataea (373), induced Athens to renew the peace with Sparta which Timotheus had broken. With the support of Persia an agreement was made by a congress at Sparta on the basis of the autonomy of the cities, Amphipolis and the Chersonese being granted to Athens. The Thebans at first accepted the terms, but on the day after, realizing that they were thus balked of their pan-Boeotian ambition, withdrew and finally severed themselves from the league.

The peace of 371 may be regarded as the conclusion of the first distinct period in the league's existence. The original purpose of the league--the protection of the allies from the ambitions of Sparta--was achieved. Athens was recognized as mistress of the sea; Sparta as the chief land power. The inherent weakness of the coalition had, however, become apparent. The enthusiasm of the allies (numbering about seventy) waned rapidly before the financial exigencies of successive campaigns, and it is abundantly clear that Thebes had no interest save the extension of her power in Boeotia. Though her secession, therefore, meant very little loss of strength, there were not wanting signs that the league was not destined to remain a power in the land.

The remaining history may be broken up into two periods, the first from 371 to 357, the second from 357 to 338. Throughout these two periods, which saw the decline and final dissolution of the alliance, there is very little specific evidence for its existence. The events seem to belong to the histories of the several cities, and examples of corporate action are few and uncertain. None the less the known facts justify a large number of inferences as to the significance of events which are on the surface merely a part of the individual foreign policy of Athens.

_Period 371-357._--The first event in this period was the battle of Leuctra (July 371), in which, no doubt to the surprise of Athens, Thebes temporarily asserted itself as the chief land power in Greece. To counterbalance the new power Athens very rashly plunged into Peloponnesian politics with the ulterior object of inducing the states which had formerly recognized the hegemony of Sparta to transfer their allegiance to the Delian League. It seems that all the states adopted this policy with the exception of Sparta (probably) and Elis. The policy of Athens was mistaken for two reasons: (1) Sparta was not entirely humiliated, and (2) alliance with the land powers of Peloponnese was incalculably dangerous, inasmuch as it involved Athens in enterprises which could not awake the enthusiasm of her maritime allies. This new coalition naturally alarmed Sparta, which at once made overtures to Athens on the ground of their common danger from Thebes. The alliance was concluded in 369. About the same time Iphicrates was sent to take possession of Amphipolis according to the treaty of 371. Some success in Macedonia roused the hostility of Thebes, and the subsequent attempts on Amphipolis caused the Chalcidians to declare against the league. It would appear that the old suspicion of the allies was now thoroughly awakened, and we find Athens making great efforts to conciliate Mytilene by honorific decrees (Hicks and Hill, 109). This suspicion, which was due primarily, no doubt, to the agreement with Sparta, would find confirmation in the subsequent exchange of compliments with Dionysius I. of Syracuse, Sparta's ally, who with his sons received the Athenian citizenship. It is not clear that the allies officially approved this new friendship; it is certain that it was actually distasteful to them. The same dislike would be roused by the Athenian alliance with Alexander of Pherae (368-367). The maritime allies naturally had no desire to be involved in the quarrels of Sicily, Thessaly and the Peloponnese.

In 367 Athens and Thebes sent rival ambassadors to Persia, with the result that Athens was actually ordered to abandon her claim to Amphipolis, and to remove her navy from the high seas. The claim to Amphipolis was subsequently affirmed, but the Greek states declined to obey the order of Persia. In 366 Athens lost Oropus, a blow which she endeavoured to repair by forming an alliance with Arcadia and by an attack on Corinth. At the same time certain of the Peloponnesian states made peace with Thebes, and some hold that Athens joined this peace (Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ v. 449). Timotheus was sent in 366-365 to make a demonstration against Persia. Finding Samos in the hands of Cyprothemis, a servant of the satrap Tigranes, he laid siege to it, captured it after a ten months' siege and established a cleruchy. Though Samos was not apparently one of the allies, this latter action could not but remind the allies of the very dangers which the second confederacy had set out to avoid.

The next important event was the serious attempt on the part of Epaminondas to challenge the Athenian naval supremacy. Though Timotheus held his ground the confederacy was undoubtedly weakened. In 362 Athens joined in the opposition to the Theban expedition which ended in the battle of Mantineia (July). In the next year the Athenian generals failed in the north in their attempt to control the Hellespont. In Thessaly Alexander of Pherae became hostile and after several successes even attacked the Peiraeus. Chares was ordered to make reprisals, but instead sailed to Corcyra, where he made the mistake of siding with the oligarchs. The last event of the period was a success, the recovery of Euboea (357), which was once more added to the league.

During these fourteen years the policy of Athens towards her maritime allies was, as we have seen, shortsighted and inconsistent. Alliances with various land powers, and an inability to understand the true relations which alone could unite the league, combined to alienate the allies, who could discover no reason for the expenditure of their contributions on protecting Sparta or Corinth against Thebes. The [Greek: Synedrion] of the league is found taking action in several instances, but there is evidence (cf. the expedition of Epaminondas in 363) that there was ground for suspecting disloyalty in many quarters. On the other hand, though the Athenian fleet became stronger and several cities were captured, the league itself did not gain any important voluntary adherents. The generals were compelled to support their forces by plunder or out of their private resources, and, frequently failing, diverted their efforts from the pressing needs of the allies to purely Athenian objects.

_Period 357-338._--The latent discontent of the allies was soon fanned into hostility by the intrigues of Mausolus, prince of Cardia, who was anxious to extend his kingdom. Chios, Rhodes, Cos, Byzantium, Erythrae and probably other cities were in revolt by the spring of 356, and their attacks on loyal members of the confederacy compelled Athens to take the offensive. Chabrias had already been killed in an attack on Chios in the previous autumn, and the fleet was under the command of Timotheus, Iphicrates and Chares, who sailed against Byzantium. The enemy sailed north from Samos and in a battle off Embata (between Erythrae and Chios) defeated Chares, who, without the consent of his colleagues, had ventured to engage them in a storm. The more cautious generals were accused of corruption in not supporting Chares. Iphicrates was acquitted and Timotheus condemned. Chares sought to replenish his resources by aiding the Phrygian satrap Artabazus against Artaxerxes Ochus, but a threat from the Persian court caused the Athenians to recall him, and peace was made by which Athens recognized the independence of the revolted towns. The league was further weakened by the secession of Corcyra, and by 355 was reduced to Athens, Euboea and a few islands. By this time, moreover, Philip II. of Macedon had begun his career of conquest, and had shattered an embryonic alliance between the league and certain princes of Thrace (Cetriporis), Paeonia (Lyppeius) and Illyria (Grabus). In 355 his advance temporarily ceased, but, as we learn from Isocrates and Xenophon, the financial exhaustion of the league was such that its destruction was only a matter of time. Resuming operations in 354, Philip, in spite of temporary checks at the hands of Chares, and the spasmodic opposition of a few barbarian chiefs, took from the league all its Thracian and Macedonian cities (Abdera, Maronea, Neapolis, Methone.) In 352-351 Philip actually received help from former members of the confederacy. In 351 Charidemus, Chares and Phocion were sent to oppose him, and we find that the contributions of the Lesbian cities were assigned to them for supplies, but no successes were gained. In 349 Euboea and Olynthus were lost to the league, of which indeed nothing remained but an empty form, in spite of the facts that the expelled Olynthians appealed to it in 348 and that Mytilene rejoined in 347. In 346 the peace of Philocrates was made between the league and Philip on terms which were accepted by the Athenian Boule. It is very remarkable that, in spite of the powerlessness of the confederacy, the last recorded event in its history is the steady loyalty of Tenedos, which gave money to Athens about 340 (Hicks and Hill, 146). The victory of Philip at Chaeronea in 338 finally destroyed the league.

In spite of the precautions taken by the allies to prevent the domination of Athens at their expense, the policy of the league was almost throughout directed rather in the interests of Athens. Founded with the specific object of thwarting the ambitious designs of Sparta, it was plunged by Athens into enterprises of an entirely different character which exhausted the resources of the allies without benefiting them in any respect. There is no doubt that, with very few exceptions, the cities were held to their allegiance solely by the superior force of the Athenian navy. The few instances of its action show that the [Greek: Synedrion] was practically only a tool in the hands of Athens.

AUTHORITIES.--_The First League._--The general histories of Greece,
especially those of A. Holm (Eng. trans., London, 1894), G. Busolt
(2nd ed., Gotha, 1893), J. Beloch (Strassburg, 1893 foll.), and G.
Grote (the one-vol. ed. of 1907 has some further notes on later
evidence). E. Meyer's _Gesch. des Altertums_ (Stuttgart, 1892 foll.)
and _Forschungen_ (Halle, 1892 foll.) are of the greatest value. For
inscriptions, G. F. Hill, _Sources of Greek History_, 478-431 (2nd
ed., 1907); E. L. Hicks and G. F. Hill, _Greek Hist. Inscr._ (Oxford,
1901). On the tribute see also U. Kohler in _Abhandlungen d. Berliner
Akademie_ (1869) and U. Pedroli, "I Tributi degli alleati d' Atene" in
Beloch's _Studi di storia antica_. See also articles ARISTIDES;
THEMISTOCLES; PERICLES; CIMON, &c., and GREECE: _History_, with works
quoted. For the last years of the league see also PELOPONNESIAN WAR.

_The Second League._--The chief modern works are G. Busolt, "Der
zweite athenische Bund" in _Neue Jahrbucher fur classische Philologie_
(supp. vol. vii., 1873-1875, pp. 641-866), and F. H. Marshall, _The
Second Athenian Confederacy_ (1905), one of the Cambridge Historical
Essays (No. xiii.). The latter is based on Busolt's monograph and
includes subsequent epigraphic evidence, with a full list of
authorities. For inscriptions see Hicks and Hill, op. cit., and the
_Inscriptiones Atticae_, vol. ii. pt. 5. The meagre data given by
ancient writers are collected by Busolt and Marshall. (J. M. M.)

DELIBES, CLEMENT PHILIBERT LEO (1836-1891), French composer, was born at Saint Germain du Val on the 21st of February 1836. He studied at the Paris Conservatoire under Adolphe Charles Adam, through whose influence he became accompanist at the Theatre Lyrique. His first essay in dramatic composition was his _Deux sous de charbon_ (1853), and during several years he produced a number of operettas. His cantata _Alger_ was heard at the Paris opera in 1865. Having become second chorus master at the Grand Opera, he wrote the music of a ballet entitled _La Source_ for this theatre, in collaboration with Minkous, a Polish composer. La Source was produced with great success in 1866. The composer returned to the operetta style with _Malbrouk s'en va-t-en guerre_,--written in collaboration with Georges Bizet, Emile Jonas and Legouix, and given at the Theatre de l'Athenee in 1867. Two years later came _L'Ecossais de Chatou_, a one-act piece, and _La Cour du roi Petaud_, a three-act opera-bouffe. The ballet _Coppelia_ was produced at the Grand Opera on the 25th of May 1870 with enormous success.

Delibes gave up his post as second chorus master at the Grand Opera in 1872 when he married the daughter of Mademoiselle Denain, formerly an actress at the Comedie Francaise. In this year he published a collection of graceful melodies including _Myrto_, _Les Filles de Cadiz_, _Bonjour_, _Suzon_ and others. His first important dramatic work was _Le Roi l'a dit_, a charming comic opera, produced on the 24th of May 1873 at the Opera Comique. Three years later, on the 14th of June 1876, _Sylvia_, a ballet in three acts, one of the composer's most delightful works, was produced at the Grand Opera. This was followed by _La Mort d'Orphee_, a grand scena produced at the Trocadero concerts in 1878; by _Jean de Nivelle_, a three-act opera brought out at the Opera Comique on the 8th of March 1880; and by _Lakme_, an opera in three acts produced at the same theatre on the 14th of April 1883. Lakme has remained his most popular opera. The composer died in Paris on the 16th of January 1891, leaving _Kassya_, a four-act opera, in an unfinished state. This work was completed by E. Guiraud, and produced at the Opera Comique on the 21st of March 1893. In 1877 Delibes became a chevalier of the Legion of Honour; in 1881 he became a professor of advanced composition at the Conservatoire; in 1884 he took the place of Victor Masse at the Institut de France.

Leo Delibes was a typically French composer. His music is light, graceful and refined. He excelled in ballet music, and _Sylvia_ may well be considered a masterpiece. His operas are constructed on a conventional pattern. The harmonic texture, however, is modern, and the melodic invention abundant, while the orchestral treatment is invariably excellent.

DELILAH, in the Bible, the heroine of Samson's last love-story and the cause of his downfall (Judg. xvi.). She was a Philistine of Sorek (mod. Surik), west of Zorah, and when her countrymen offered her an enormous bribe to betray him, she set to work to find out the source of his strength. Thrice Samson scoffingly told her how he might be bound, and thrice he readily broke the bonds with which she had fettered him in his sleep; seven green bow-strings, new ropes, and even the braiding of his hair into the frame of the loom failed to secure him. At length he disclosed the secret of his power. Delilah put him to sleep upon her lap, called in a man to shave off his seven locks, and this time he was easily captured. See SAMSON.

DELILLE, JACQUES (1738-1813), French poet, was born on the 22nd of June 1738 at Aigue-Perse in Auvergne. He was an illegitimate child, and was descended by his mother from the chancellor De l'Hopital. He was educated at the college of Lisieux in Paris and became an elementary teacher. He gradually acquired a reputation as a poet by his epistles, in which things are not called by their ordinary names but are hinted at by elaborate periphrases. Sugar becomes "le miel americain que du suc des roseaux exprima l'Africain." The publication (1769) of his translation of the _Georgics_ of Virgil made him famous. Voltaire recommended the poet for the next vacant place in the Academy. He was at once elected a member, but was not admitted until 1774 owing to the opposition of the king, who alleged that he was too young. In his _Jardins, ou l'art d'embellir les paysages_ (1782) he made good his pretensions as an original poet. In 1786 he made a journey to Constantinople in the train of the ambassador M. de Choiseul-Gouffier.

Delille had become professor of Latin poetry at the College da France, and abbot of Saint-Severin, when the outbreak of the Revolution reduced him to poverty. He purchased his personal safety by professing his adherence to revolutionary doctrine, but eventually quitted Paris, and retired to St Die, where he completed his translation of the _Aeneid_. He emigrated first to Basel and then to Glairesse in Switzerland. Here he finished his _Homme des champs_, and his poem on the _Trois regnes de la nature_. His next place of refuge was in Germany, where he composed his _La Pitie_; and finally, he passed some time in London, chiefly employed in translating _Paradise Lost_. In 1802 he was able to return to Paris, where, although nearly blind, he resumed his professorship and his chair at the Academy, but lived in retirement. He fortunately did not outlive the vogue of the descriptive poems which were his special province, and died on the 1st of May 1813.

Delille left behind him little prose. His preface to the translation of the _Georgics_ is an able essay, and contains many excellent hints on the art and difficulties of translation. He wrote the article "La Bruyere" in the _Biographie universelle_. The following is the list of his poetical works:--_Les Georgiques de Virgile, traduites en vers francais_ (Paris, 1769, 1782, 1785, 1809); _Les Jardins_, en quatre chants (1780; new edition, Paris, 1801); _L'Homme des champs, ou les Georgiques francaises_ (Strassburg, 1802); _Poesies fugitives_ (1802); _Dithyrambe sur l'immortalite de l'ame, suivi du passage du Saint Gothard_, poeme traduit de l'Anglais de Madame la duchesse de Devonshire (1802); _La Pitie_, poeme en quatre chants (Paris, 1802); _L'Eneide de Virgile, traduite en vers francais_ (4 vols., 1804); _Le Paradis perdu_ (3 vols., 1804); _L'Imagination_, poeme en huit chants (2 vols., 1806); _Les trois regnes de la nature_ (2 vols., 1808); _La Conversation_ (1812). A collection given under the title of _Poesies diverses_ (1801) was disavowed by Delille.

His _Oeuvres_ (16 vols.) were published in 1824. See Sainte-Beuve,
_Portraits litteraires_, vol. ii.

DELIRIUM (a Latin medical term for madness, from _delirare_, to be mad, literally to wander from the _lira_, or furrow), a temporary form of brain disorder, generally occurring in connexion with some special form of bodily disease. It may vary in intensity from slight and occasional wandering of the mind and incoherence of expression, to fixed delusions and violent maniacal excitement, and again it may be associated with more or less of coma or insensibility. (See INSANITY, and NEUROPATHOLOGY.) Delirium is apt to occur in most diseases of an acute nature, such as fevers or inflammatory affections, in injuries affecting the brain, in blood diseases, in conditions of exhaustion, and as the result of the action of certain specific poisons, such as opium, Indian hemp, belladonna, chloroform and alcohol.

Delirium tremens is one of a train of symptoms of what is termed in medical nomenclature acute alcoholism, or excessive indulgence in alcohol. It must, however, be observed that this disorder, although arising in this manner, rarely comes on as the result of a single debauch in a person unaccustomed to the abuse of stimulants, but generally occurs in cases where the nervous system has been already subjected for a length of time to the poisonous action of alcohol, so that the complaint might be more properly regarded as acute supervening on chronic alcoholism. It is equally to be borne in mind that many habitual drunkards never suffer from delirium tremens.

It was long supposed, and is indeed still believed by some, that delirium tremens only comes on when the supply of alcohol has been suddenly cut off; but this view is now generally rejected, and there is abundant evidence to show that the attack comes on while the patient is still continuing to drink. Even in those cases where several days have elapsed between the cessation from drinking and the seizure, it will be found that in the interval the premonitory symptoms of delirium tremens have shown themselves, one of which is aversion to drink as well as food--the attack being in most instances preceded by marked derangement of the digestive functions. Occasionally the attack is precipitated in persons predisposed to it by the occurrence of some acute disease, such as pneumonia, by accidents, such as burns, also by severe mental strain, and by the deprivation of food, even where the supply of alcohol is less than would have been likely to produce it otherwise. Where, on the other hand, the quantity of alcohol taken has been very large, the attack is sometimes ushered in by fits of an epileptiform character.

One of the earliest indications of the approaching attack of delirium tremens is sleeplessness, any rest the patient may obtain being troubled by unpleasant or terrifying dreams. During the day there is observed a certain restlessness and irritability of manner, with trembling of the hands and a thick or tremulous articulation. The skin is perspiring, the countenance oppressed-looking and flushed, the pulse rapid and feeble, and there is evidence of considerable bodily prostration. These symptoms increase each day and night for a few days, and then the characteristic delirium is superadded. The patient is in a state of mental confusion, talks incessantly and incoherently, has a distressed and agitated or perplexed appearance, and a vague notion that he is pursued by some one seeking to injure him. His delusions are usually of transient character, but he is constantly troubled with visual hallucinations in the form of disagreeable animals or insects which he imagines he sees all about him. He looks suspiciously around him, turns over his pillows, and ransacks his bedclothes for some fancied object he supposes to be concealed there. There is constant restlessness, a common form of delusion being that he is not in his own house, but imprisoned in some apartment from which he is anxious to escape to return home. In these circumstances he is ever wishing to get out of bed and out of doors, and, although in general he may be persuaded to return to bed, he is soon desiring to get up again. The trembling of the muscles from which the name of the disease is derived is a prominent but not invariable symptom. It is most marked in the muscles of the hands and arms and in the tongue. The character of the delirium is seldom wild or noisy, but is much more commonly a combination of busy restlessness and indefinite fear. When spoken to, the patient can answer correctly enough, but immediately thereafter relapses into his former condition of incoherence. Occasionally maniacal symptoms develop themselves, the patient becoming dangerously violent, and the case thus assuming a much graver aspect than one of simple delirium tremens.

In most cases the symptoms undergo abatement in from three to six days, the cessation of the attack being marked by the occurrence of sound sleep, from which the patient awakes in his right mind, although in a state of great physical prostration, and in great measure if not entirely oblivious of his condition during his illness.

Although generally the termination of an attack of delirium tremens is in recovery, it occasionally proves fatal by the supervention of coma and convulsions, or acute mania, or by exhaustion, more especially when any acute bodily disease is associated with the attack. In certain instances delirium tremens is but the beginning of serious and permanent impairment of intellect, as is not infrequently observed in confirmed drunkards who have suffered from frequent attacks of this disease. The theory once widely accepted, that delirium tremens was the result of the too sudden breaking off from indulgence in alcohol, led to its treatment by regular and often large doses of stimulants, a practice fraught with mischievous results, since however much the delirium appeared to be thus calmed for the time, the continuous supply of the poison which was the original source of the disease inflicted serious damage upon the brain, and led in many instances to the subsequent development of insanity. The former system of prescribing large doses of opium, with the view of procuring sleep at all hazards, was no less pernicious. In addition to these methods of treatment, mechanical restraint of the patient was the common practice.

The views of the disease which now prevail, recognizing the delirium as the effect at once of the poisonous action of alcohol upon the brain and of the want of food, encourage reliance to be placed for its cure upon the entire withdrawal, in most instances, of stimulants, and the liberal administration of light nutriment, in addition to quietness and gentle but firm control, without mechanical restraint. In mild attacks this is frequently all that is required. In more severe cases, where there is great restlessness, sedatives have to be resorted to, and many substances have been recommended for the purpose. Opiates administered in small quantity, and preferably by hypodermic injection, are undoubtedly of value; and chloral, either alone or in conjunction with bromide of potassium, often answers even better. Such remedies, however, should be administered with great caution, and only under medical supervision.

Stimulants may be called for where the delirium assumes the low or adynamic form, and the patient tends to sink from exhaustion, or when the attack is complicated with some other disease. Such cases are, however, in the highest degree exceptional, and do not affect the general principle of treatment already referred to, which inculcates the entire withdrawal of stimulants in the treatment of ordinary attacks of delirium tremens.

DELISLE, JOSEPH NICOLAS (1688-1768), French astronomer, was born at Paris on the 4th of April 1688. Attracted to astronomy by the solar eclipse of the 12th of May 1706, he obtained permission in 1710 to lodge in the dome of the Luxembourg, procured some instruments, and there observed the total eclipse of the 22nd of May 1724. He proposed in 1715 the "diffraction-theory" of the sun's corona, visited England and was received into the Royal Society in 1724, and left Paris for St Petersburg on a summons from the empress Catherine, towards the end of 1725. Having founded an observatory there, he returned to Paris in 1747, was appointed geographical astronomer to the naval department with a salary of 3000 livres, and installed an observatory in the Hotel Cluny. Charles Messier and J. J. Lalande were among his pupils. He died of apoplexy at Paris on the 12th of September 1768. Delisle is chiefly remembered as the author of a method for observing the transits of Venus and Mercury by instants of contacts. First proposed by him in a letter to J. Cassini in 1743, it was afterwards perfected, and has been extensively employed. As a preliminary to the transit of Mercury in 1743, which he personally observed, he issued a map of the world showing the varied circumstances of its occurrence. Besides many papers communicated to the academy of sciences, of which he became a member in 1714, he published _Memoires pour servir a l'histoire et au progres de l'astronomie_ (St Petersburg, 1738), in which he gave the first method for determining the heliocentric co-ordinates of sun-spots; _Memoire sur les nouvelles decouvertes au nord de la mer du sud_ (Paris, 1752), &c.

See _Memoires de l'acad. des sciences_ (Paris, 1768), _Histoire_, p.
167 (G. de Fouchy); J. B. J. Delambre, _Hist. de l'astronomie au
XVIII^e siecle_, pp. 319, 533; Max. Marie, _Hist. des sciences_, vii.
254; Lalande, Bibl. astr. p. 385; and _Le Necrologe des hommes
celebres de France_ (1770). The records of Delisle's observations at
St Petersburg are preserved in manuscript at the Pulkowa observatory.
A report upon them was presented to the St Petersburg academy of
sciences by O. Struve in 1848, and those relating to occultations of
the Pleiades were discussed by Carl Linsser in 1864. See also S.
Newcomb, _Washington Observations_ for 1875, app. ii. pp. 176-189.
(A. M. C.)

DELISLE, LEOPOLD VICTOR (1826- ), French bibliophile and historian, was born at Valognes (Manche) on the 24th of October 1826. At the Ecole des Chartes, where his career was remarkably brilliant, his valedictory thesis was an _Essai sur les revenus publics en Normandie au XII^e siecle_ (1849), and it was to the history of his native province that he devoted his early works. Of these the _Etudes sur la condition de la classe agricole et l'etat de l'agriculture en Normandie au moyen age_ (1851), condensing an enormous mass of facts drawn from the local archives, was reprinted in 1905 without change, and remains authoritative. In November 1852 he entered the manuscript department of the Bibliotheque Imperiale (Nationale), of which in 1874 he became the official head in succession to Jules Taschereau. He was already known as the compiler of several invaluable inventories of its manuscripts. When the French government decided on printing a general catalogue of the printed books in the Bibliotheque, Delisle became responsible for this great undertaking and took an active part in the work; in the preface to the first volume (1897) he gave a detailed history of the library and its management. Under his administration the library was enriched with numerous gifts, legacies and acquisitions, notably by the purchase of a part of the Ashburnham MSS. Delisle proved that the bulk of the MSS. of French origin which Lord Ashburnham had bought in France, particularly those bought from the bookseller Barrois, had been purloined by Count Libri, inspector-general of libraries under King Louis Philippe, and he procured the repurchase of the MSS. for the library, afterwards preparing a catalogue of them entitled _Catalogue des MSS. des fonds Libri et Barrois_ (1888), the preface of which gives the history of the whole transaction. He was elected member of the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres in 1859, and became a member of the staff of the _Recueil des historiens de la France_, collaborating in vols. xxii. (1865) and xxiii. (1876) and editing vol. xxiv. (1904), which is valuable for the social history of France in the 13th century. The jubilee of his fifty years' association with the Bibliotheque Nationale was celebrated on the 8th of March 1903. After his retirement (February 21, 1905) he brought out in two volumes a catalogue and description of the printed books and MSS. in the Musee Conde at Chantilly, left by the due d'Aumale to the French Institute. He produced many valuable official reports and catalogues and a great number of memoirs and monographs on points connected with palaeography and the study of history and archaeology (see his _Melanges de paleographie et de bibliographie_ (1880) with atlas; and his articles in the _Album paleographique_ (1887). Of his purely historical works special mention must be made of his _Memoire sur les actes d'Innocent III_ (1857), and his _Memoire sur les operations financieres des Templiers_ (1889), a collection of documents of the highest value for economic history. The thirty-second volume of the _Histoire litteraire de la France_, which was partly his work, is of great importance for the study of 13th and 14th century Latin chronicles. Delisle was undoubtedly the most learned man in Europe with regard to the middle ages; and his knowledge of diplomatics, palaeography and printing was profound. His output of work, in catalogues, &c., was enormous, and his services to the Bibliotheque Nationale in this respect cannot be overestimated. His wife, a daughter of Eugene Burnouf, was for many years his collaborator.

The _Bibliographie des travaux de L. Delisle_ (1902), by Paul Lacombe,
may be consulted for a full list of his numerous works.

DELITZSCH, FRANZ (1813-1890), German Lutheran theologian and orientalist, of Jewish descent, was born at Leipzig on the 23rd of February 1813. He studied theology and oriental languages in the university of his native town, and in 1850 was appointed professor ordinarius of theology at Erlangen, where the school of theologians became almost as famous as that of Tubingen. In 1867 he accepted a call to Leipzig, where he died on the 4th of March 1890. Delitzsch was a strict Lutheran. "By the banner of our Lutheran confession let us stand," he said in 1888; "folding ourselves in it, let us die" (T. K. Cheyne, _Founders_, p. 160). Greatly interested in the Jews, he longed ardently for their conversion to Christianity; and with a view to this he edited the periodical _Saat auf Hoffnung_ from 1863, revived the "Institutum Judaicum" in 1880, founded a Jewish missionary college for the training of theologians, and translated the _New Testament_ into Hebrew. He acquired such a mastery of post-biblical, rabbinic and talmudic literature that he has been called the "Christian Talmudist." Though never an advanced critic, his article on Daniel in the second edition of Herzog's _Realencyklopadie_, his _New Commentary on Genesis_ and the fourth edition of his _Isaiah_ show that as years went on his sympathy with higher criticism increased--so much so indeed that Prof. Cheyne has included him among its founders.

He wrote a number of very valuable commentaries on _Habakkuk_ (1843), _Genesis_ (1852, 4th ed. 1872), _Neuer Kommentar uber die Genesis_ (1887, Eng. trans. 1888, &c.), _Psalms_ (4th ed. 1883, Eng. trans. 1886, &c.), _Job_ (2nd ed., 1876), _Isaiah_ (4th ed. 1889, Eng. trans. 1890, &c.), _Proverbs_ (1873), _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1857, Eng. trans. 1865, &c.), _Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes_ (4th ed., 1875). Other works are _Geschichte der jud. Poesie_ (1836); _Jesus und Hillel_ (1867, 3rd ed. 1879); _Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu_ (1868, 3rd ed. 1878, Eng. trans. in the "Unit Library," 1902); _Ein Tag in Kapernaum_ (1871, 3rd ed. 1886); _Poesieen aus vormuhammedanischer Zeit_ (1874); _Iris, Farbenstudien und Blumenstucke_ (1888, Eng. trans. 1889); _Messianische Weissagungen in geschichtlicher Folge_ (1890, 2nd ed. 1898). His Hebrew _New Testament_ reached its eleventh edition in 1891, and his popular devotional work _Das Sakrament des wahren Leibes und Blutes Jesu Christi_ its seventh edition in 1886.

His son, FRIEDRICH DELITZSCH (b. 1850), became well known as professor of Assyriology in Berlin, and the author of many books of great research and learning, especially on oriental philology. Among other works of importance he wrote _Wo lag das Paradies?_ (1881), and _Babel und Bibel_ (1902, 1903, Eng. trans. 1903).

DELITZSCH, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Saxony, on the Lober, an affluent of the Mulde, 12 m. north of Leipzig at the junction of the railways, Bitterfeld-Leipzig and Halle-Cottbus. Pop. (1905) 10,479. Its public buildings comprise an old castle of the 14th century now used as a female penitentiary, a Roman Catholic and three Protestant churches, a normal college (_Schullehrerseminar_) established in 1873 and several other educational institutions. Besides _Kuhschwanz_, a peculiar kind of beer, it manufactures tobacco, cigars, shoes and hosiery; and coal-mining is carried on in the neighbourhood, It was the birthplace of the naturalist Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg (1795-1876), and the political economist Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch (1808-1883), to the latter of whom a statue has been erected. Originally a settlement of the Sorbian Wends, and in the 12th century part of the possessions of the bishops of Merseburg, Delitzsch ultimately passed to the Saxe-Merseburg family, and, on their extinction in 1738, was incorporated with Electoral Saxony.

DELIUS, NIKOLAUS (1813-1888), German philologist and Shakespearean scholar, was born at Bremen on the 19th of September 1813. He was educated at Bonn and Berlin, and took the degree of doctor in philosophy in 1838. After travelling for some time in England, France and Germany, he returned to Bonn in 1846, where in 1855 he was appointed professor of Sanskrit, Provencal and English literature, a post he held until his death, which took place at Bonn on the 18th of November 1888. His greatest literary achievement was his scholarly edition of Shakespeare (1854-1861). He also edited Wace's _St Nicholas_ (1850), a volume of Provencal songs (1853), and published a _Shakspere-Lexikon_ (1852). His original works include: _Uber das englische Theaterwesen zu Shaksperes Zeit_ (1853), _Gedichte_ (1853), _Der sardinische Dialekt des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts_ (1868), and _Abhandlungen zu Shakspere_ (two series, 1878 and 1888). As a critic of Shakespeare's text he stands in the first rank.

See the biographical notice by J. Schipper in _Englische Studien_,
vol. 14.

DELLA BELLA, STEFANO (1610-1664), Italian engraver, was born at Florence. He was apprenticed to a goldsmith; but some prints of Callot having fallen into his hands, he began to turn his attention entirely towards engraving, and studied the art under Canta Gallina, who had also been the instructor of Callot. By the liberality of Lorenzo de' Medici he was enabled to spend three years in study at Rome. In 1642 he went to Paris, where Cardinal Richelieu engaged him to go to Arras and make drawings of the siege and taking of that town by the royal army. After residing a considerable time at Paris he returned to Florence, where he obtained a pension from the grand duke, whose son, Cosmo, he instructed in drawing. His productions were very numerous, amounting to over 1400 separate pieces.

DELLA CASA, GIOVANNI (1503-1556), Italian poet, was born at Mugillo, in Tuscany, in 1503. He studied at Bologna, Florence and Rome, and by his learning attracted the patronage of Alexander Farnese, who, as Pope Paul III., made him nuncio to Florence, where he received the honour of being elected a member of the celebrated academy, and then to Naples, where his oratorical ability brought him considerable success. His reward was the archbishopric of Benevento, and it was believed that it was only his openly licentious poem, _Capitoli del forno_, and the fact that the French court seemed to desire his elevation, which prevented him from being raised to a still higher dignity. He died in 1556. Casa is chiefly remarkable as the leader of a reaction in lyric poetry against the universal imitation of Petrarch, and as the originator of a style, which, if less soft and elegant, was more nervous and majestic than that which it replaced. His prose writings gained great reputation in their own day, and long afterwards, but are disfigured by apparent straining after effect, and by frequent puerility and circumlocution. The principal are--in Italian, the famous _Il Galateo_ (1558), a treatise of manners, which has been translated into several languages, and in Latin, _De officiis_, and translations from Thucydides, Plato and Aristotle.

A complete edition of his works was published at Florence in 1707, to
which is prefixed a life by Casotti. The best edition is that of
Venice, 1752.

DELLA COLLE, RAFFAELLINO, Italian painter, was born at Colle, near Borgo San Sepolcro, in Tuscany, about 1490. A pupil of Raphael, whom he is held to have assisted in the Farnesina and the Vatican, Della Colle, after his master's death, was the assistant of his chief scholar, Giulio Romano, at Rome and afterwards at Mantua. In 1536, on the occasion of the entry of Charles V. into Florence, he took service in that city under Vasari. In his later years Della Colle resided at Borgo San Sepolcro, where he kept a school of design; among his many pupils of note may be mentioned Gherardi and Vecchi. His works, which are to be found at Urbino, at Perugia, at Pesaro and at Gubbio, are fine examples of the Roman school of Raphael. The best are a painting of the Almighty supported by angels, a Resurrection and an Assumption, all preserved in churches at Borgo San Sepolcro.

DELLA GHERARDESCA, UGOLINO (c. 1220-1289), count of Donoratico, was the head of the powerful family of Gherardesca, the chief Ghibelline house of Pisa. His alliance with the Visconti, the leaders of the Guelph faction, through the marriage of his sister with Giovanni Visconti, judge of Gallura, aroused the suspicions of his party, and the Ghibellines being then predominant in Pisa, the disorders in the city caused by Ugolino and Visconti in 1271-1274 led to the arrest of the former and the banishment of the latter. Visconti died soon afterwards, and Ugolino, no longer regarded as dangerous, was liberated and banished. But he immediately began to intrigue with the Guelph towns opposed to Pisa, and with the help of Charles I. of Anjou (q.v.) attacked his native city and forced it to make peace on humiliating terms, pardoning him and all the other Guelph exiles. He lived quietly in Pisa for some years, although working all the time to extend his influence. War having broken out between Pisa and Genoa in 1284, Count Ugolino was given the command of a division of the Pisan fleet. It was by his flight--usually attributed to treachery--that the fortunes of the day were decided and the Pisans totally defeated at La Meloria (October 1284). But the political ability which he afterwards displayed led to his being appointed _podesta_ for a year and _capitano del popolo_ for ten years. Florence and Lucca took advantage of the Pisan defeat to attack the republic, but Ugolino succeeded in pacifying them by ceding certain castles. He was however less anxious to make peace with Genoa, for the return of the Pisan prisoners, including most of the leading Ghibellines, would have diminished his power. He was now the most influential man in Pisa, and was preparing to establish his absolute sovereignty, when for some reason not clearly understood he was forced to share his power with his nephew Nino Visconti, son of Giovanni. The duumvirate did not last, and the count and Nino soon quarrelled. Then Ugolino tried to consolidate his position by entering into negotiations with the archbishop, Ruggieri degli Ubaldini, the leader of the Ghibellines. But that party having revived once more, the archbishop obliged both Nino and Ugolino to leave the city, and had himself elected _podesta_ and _capitano del popolo_. However, he allowed Ugolino to return soon afterwards, and was even ready to divide the government of the city with him, although he refused to admit his armed followers. The count, determined to be sole master, attempted to get his followers into the city by way of the Arno, and Ruggieri, realizing the danger, aroused the citizens, accusing Ugolino of treachery for having ceded the castles, and after a day's street fighting (July 1, 1288), Gherardesca was captured and immured together with his sons Gaddo and Uguccione, and his grandsons Nino (surnamed _il Brigata_) and Anselmuccio, in the Muda, a tower belonging to the Gualandi family; here they were detained for nine months, and then starved to death.