Chapter III: Part 3

DEVENS, CHARLES (1820-1891), American lawyer and jurist, was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts, on the 4th of April 1820. He graduated at Harvard College in 1838, and at the Harvard law school in 1840, and was admitted to the bar in Franklin county, Mass., where he practised from 1841 to 1849. In the year 1848 he was a Whig member of the state senate, and from 1849 to 1853 was United States marshal for Massachusetts, in which capacity he was called upon in 1851 to remand the fugitive slave, Thomas Sims, to slavery. This he felt constrained to do, much against his personal desire; and subsequently he attempted in vain to purchase Sims's freedom, and many years later appointed him to a position in the department of justice at Washington. Devens practised law at Worcester from 1853 until 1861, and throughout the Civil War served in the Federal army, becoming colonel of volunteers in July 1861 and brigadier-general of volunteers in April 1862. At the battle of Ball's Bluff (1861) he was severely wounded; he was again wounded at Fair Oaks (1862) and at Chancellorsville (1863), where he commanded a division. He later distinguished himself at Cold Harbor, and commanded a division in Grant's final campaign in Virginia (1864-65), his troops being the first to occupy Richmond after its fall. Breveted major-general in 1865, he remained in the army for a year as commander of the military district of Charleston, South Carolina. He was a judge of the Massachusetts superior court from 1867 to 1873, and was an associate justice of the supreme court of the state from 1873 to 1877, and again from 1881 to 1891. From 1877 to 1881 he was attorney-general of the United States in the cabinet of President Hayes. He died at Boston, Mass., on the 7th of January 1891.

See his _Orations and Addresses_, with a memoir by John Codman Ropes
(Boston, 1891).

DEVENTER, a town in the province of Overysel, Holland, on the right bank of the Ysel, at the confluence of the Schipbeek, and a junction station 10 m. N. of Zutphen by rail. It is also connected by steam tramway S.E. with Brokulo. Pop. (1900) 26,212. Deventer is a neat and prosperous town situated in the midst of prettily wooded environs, and containing many curious old buildings. There are three churches of special interest: the Groote Kerk (St Lebuinus), which dates from 1334, and occupies the site of an older structure of which the 11th-century crypt remains; the Roman Catholic Broederkerk, or Brothers' Church, containing among its relics three ancient gospels said to have been written by St Lebuinus (Lebwin), the English apostle of the Frisians and Westphalians (d. c. 773); and the Bergkerk, dedicated in 1206, which has two late Romanesque towers. The town hall (1693) contains a remarkable painting of the town council by Terburg. In the fine square called the Brink is the old weigh-house, now a school (gymnasium), built in 1528, with a large external staircase (1644). The gymnasium is descended from the Latin school of which the celebrated Alexander Hegius was master in the third quarter of the 15th century, when the young Erasmus was sent to it, and at which Adrian Floreizoon, afterwards Pope Adrian VI., is said to have been a pupil about the same time. Another famous educational institution was the "Athenaeum" or high school, founded in 1630, at which Henri Renery (d. 1639) taught philosophy, while Johann Friedrich Gronov (Gronovius) (1611-1671) taught rhetoric and history in the middle of the same century. The "Athenaeum" disappeared in 1876. In modern times Deventer possessed a famous teacher in Dr Burgersdyk (d. 1900), the Dutch translator of Shakespeare. The town library, also called the library of the Athenaeum, includes many MSS. and _incunabula_, and a 13th-century copy of _Reynard the Fox_. The archives of the town are of considerable value. Besides a considerable agricultural trade, Deventer has important iron foundries and carpet factories (the royal manufactory of Smyrna carpets being especially famous); while cotton-printing, rope-making and the weaving of woollens and silks are also carried on. A public official is appointed to supervise the proper making of a form of gingerbread known as "_Deventer Koek_," which has a reputation throughout Holland. In the church of Bathmen, a village 5 m. E. of Deventer, some 14th-century frescoes were discovered in 1870.

In the 14th century Deventer was the centre of the famous religious and educational movement associated with the name of GERHARD GROOT (q.v.), who was a native of the town (see BROTHERS OF COMMON LIFE).

DE VERE, AUBREY THOMAS (1814-1902), Irish poet and critic, was born at Curragh Chase, Co. Limerick, on the 10th of January 1814, being the third son of Sir Aubrey de Vere Hunt (1788-1846). In 1832 his father dropped the final name by royal licence. Sir Aubrey was himself a poet. Wordsworth called his sonnets the "most perfect of the age." These and his drama, _Mary Tudor_, were published by his son in 1875 and 1884. Aubrey de Vere was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and in his twenty-eighth year published _The Waldenses_, which he followed up in the next year by _The Search after Proserpine_. Thenceforward he was continually engaged, till his death on the 20th of January 1902, in the production of poetry and criticism. His best-known works are: in verse, _The Sisters_ (1861); _The Infant Bridal_ (1864); _Irish Odes_ (1869); _Legends of St Patrick_ (1872); and _Legends of the Saxon Saints_ (1879); and in prose, _Essays chiefly on Poetry_ (1887); and _Essays chiefly Literary and Ethical_ (1889). He also wrote a picturesque volume of travel-sketches, and two dramas in verse, _Alexander the Great_ (1874); and _St Thomas of Canterbury_ (1876); both of which, though they contain fine passages, suffer from diffuseness and a lack of dramatic spirit. The characteristics of Aubrey de Vere's poetry are "high seriousness" and a fine religious enthusiasm. His research in questions of faith led him to the Roman Church; and in many of his poems, notably in the volume of sonnets called _St Peter's Chains_ (1888), he made rich additions to devotional verse. He was a disciple of Wordsworth, whose calm meditative serenity he often echoed with great felicity; and his affection for Greek poetry, truly felt and understood, gave dignity and weight to his own versions of mythological idylls. But perhaps he will be chiefly remembered for the impulse which he gave to the study of Celtic legend and literature. In this direction he has had many followers, who have sometimes assumed the appearance of pioneers; but after Matthew Arnold's fine lecture on "Celtic Literature," nothing perhaps did more to help the Celtic revival than Aubrey de Vere's tender insight into the Irish character, and his stirring reproductions of the early Irish epic poetry.

A volume of _Selections_ from his poems was edited in 1894 (New York
and London) by G. E. Woodberry.

DEVICE, a scheme, plan, simple mechanical contrivance; also a pattern or design, particularly an heraldic design or emblem, often combined with a motto or legend. "Device" and its doublet "devise" come from the two Old French forms _devis_ and _devise_ of the Latin _divisa_, things divided, from _dividere_, to separate, used in the sense of to arrange, set out, apportion. "Devise," as a substantive, is now only used as a legal term for a disposition of property by will, by a modern convention restricted to a disposition of real property, the term "bequest" being used of personalty (see WILL). This use is directly due to the Medieval Latin meaning of _dividere_ = _testamento disponere_. In its verbal form, "devise" is used not only in the legal sense, but also in the sense of to plan, arrange, scheme.

DEVIL (Gr. [Greek: diabolos], "slanderer," from [Greek: diaballein], to slander), the generic name for a spirit of evil, especially the supreme spirit of evil, the foe of God and man. The word is used for minor evil spirits in much the same sense as "demon." From the various characteristics associated with this idea, the term has come to be applied by analogy in many different senses. From the idea of evil as degraded, contemptible and doomed to failure, the term is applied to persons in evil plight, or of slight consideration. In English legal phraseology "devil" and "devilling" are used of barristers who act as substitutes for others. Any remuneration which the legal "devil" may receive is purely a matter of private arrangement between them. In the chancery division such remuneration is generally in the proportion of one half of the fee which the client pays; "in the king's bench division remuneration for 'devilling' of briefs or assisting in drafting and opinions is not common" (see _Annual Practice_, 1907, p. 717). In a similar sense an author may have his materials collected and arranged by a literary hack or "devil." The term "printer's devil" for the errand boy in a printing office probably combines this idea with that of his being black with ink. The common notions of the devil as black, ill-favoured, malicious, destructive and the like, have occasioned the application of the term to certain animals (the Tasmanian devil, the devil-fish, the coot), to mechanical contrivances (for tearing up cloth or separating wool), to pungent, highly seasoned dishes, broiled or fried. In this article we are concerned with the primary sense of the word, as used in mythology and religion.

The primitive philosophy of animism involves the ascription of all phenomena to personal agencies. As phenomena are good or evil, produce pleasure or pain, cause weal or woe, a distinction in the character of these agencies is gradually recognized; the agents of good become gods, those of evil, demons. A tendency towards the simplification and organization of the evil as of the good forces, leads towards belief in outstanding leaders among the forces of evil. When the divine is most completely conceived as unity, the demonic is also so conceived; and over against God stands Satan, or the devil.

Although it is in connexion with Hebrew and Christian monotheism that this belief in the devil has been most fully developed, yet there are approaches to the doctrine in other religions. In Babylonian mythology "the old serpent goddess 'the lady Nina' was transformed into the embodiment of all that was hostile to the powers of heaven" (Sayce's _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 283), and was confounded with the dragon Tiamat, "a terrible monster, reappearing in the Old Testament writings as Rahab and Leviathan, the principle of chaos, the enemy of God and man" (Tennant's _The Fall and Original Sin_, p. 43), and according to Gunkel (_Schöpfung und Chaos_, p. 383) "the original of the 'old serpent' of Rev. xii. 9." In Egyptian mythology the serpent Apap with an army of monsters strives daily to arrest the course of the boat of the luminous gods. While the Greek mythology described the Titans as "enchained once for all in their dark dungeons" yet Prometheus' threat remained to disturb the tranquillity of the Olympian Zeus. In the German mythology the army of darkness is led by Hel, the personification of twilight, sunk to the goddess who enchains the dead and terrifies the living, and Loki, originally the god of fire, but afterwards "looked upon as the father of the evil powers, who strips the goddess of earth of her adornments, who robs Thor of his fertilizing hammer, and causes the death of Balder the beneficent sun." In Hindu mythology the Maruts, Indra, Agni and Vishnu wage war with the serpent Ahi to deliver the celestial cows or spouses, the waters held captive in the caverns of the clouds. In the _Trimurti_, Brahm[=a] (the impersonal) is manifested as Brahm[=a] (the personal creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Siva (the destroyer). In Siva is perpetuated the belief in the god of Vedic times Rudra, who is represented as "the wild hunter who storms over the earth with his bands, and lays low with arrows the men who displease him" (Chantepie de la Saussaye's _Religionsgeschichte_, 2nd ed., vol. ii. p. 25). The evil character of Siva is reflected in his wife, who as Kali (the black) is the wild and cruel goddess of destruction and death. The opposition of good and evil is most fully carried out in Zoroastrianism. Opposed to Ormuzd, the author of all good, is Ahriman, the source of all evil; and the opposition runs through the whole universe (D'Alviella's _Hibbert Lectures_, pp. 158-164).

The conception of _Satan_ (Heb. [Hebrew: Satan], the adversary, Gr. [Greek: Satanas], or [Greek: Satan], 2 Cor. xii. 7) belongs to the post-exilic period of Hebrew development, and probably shows traces of the influence of Persian on Jewish thought, but it has also its roots in much older beliefs. An "evil spirit" possesses Saul (1 Sam. xvi. 14), but it is "from the Lord." The same agency produces discord between Abimelech and the Shechemites (Judges ix. 23). "A lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets" as Yahweh's messenger entices Ahab to his doom (1 Kings xxii. 22). Growing human corruption is traced to the fleshy union of angels and women (Gen. vi. 1-4). But generally evil, whether as misfortune or as sin, is assigned to divine causality (1 Sam. xviii. 10; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1; 1 Kings xxii. 20; Isa. vi. 10, lxiii. 17). After the Exile there is a tendency to protect the divine transcendence by the introduction of mediating angelic agency, and to separate all evil from God by ascribing its origin to Satan, the enemy of God and man. In the prophecy of Zechariah (iii. 1-2) he stands as the adversary of Joshua, the high priest, and is rebuked by Yahweh for desiring that Jerusalem should be further punished. In the book of Job he presents himself before the Lord among the sons of God (ii. 1), yet he is represented both as accuser and tempter. He disbelieves in Job's integrity, and desires him to be so tried that he may fall into sin. While, according to 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, God himself tests David in regard to the numbering of the people, according to 1 Chron. xxi. 1 it is Satan who tempts him.

The development of the conception continued in later Judaism, which was probably more strongly influenced by Persian dualism. It is doubtful, however, whether the Asmodeus (q.v.) of the book of Tobit is the same as the A[=e]shma Da[=e]wa of the Bundahesh. He is the evil spirit who slew the seven husbands of Sara (iii. 8), and the name probably means "Destroyer." In the book of Enoch Satan is represented as the ruler of a rival kingdom of evil, but here are also mentioned Satans, who are distinguished from the fallen angels and who have a threefold function, to tempt, to accuse and to punish. Satan possesses the ungodly (Ecclesiasticus xxi. 27), is identified with the serpent of Gen. iii. (Wisdom ii. 24), and is probably also represented by Asmodeus, to whom lustful qualities are assigned (Tobit vi. 14); Gen. iii. is probably referred to in Psalms of Solomon xvii. 49, "a serpent speaking with the words of transgressors, words of deceit to pervert wisdom." The _Book of the Secrets of Enoch_ not only identifies Satan with the Serpent, but also describes his revolt against God, and expulsion from heaven. In the Jewish _Targums_ Sammael, "the highest angel that stands before God's throne, caused the serpent to seduce the woman"; he coalesces with Satan, and has inferior Satans as his servants. The birth of Cain is ascribed to a union of Satan with Eve. As accuser affecting man's standing before God he is greatly feared.

This doctrine, stripped of much of its grossness, is reproduced in the New Testament. Satan is the [Greek: diabolos] (Matt. xiii. 39; John xiii. 2; Eph. iv. 27; Heb. ii. 14; Rev. ii. 10), slanderer or accuser, the [Greek: peirazôn] (Matt. iv. 3; 1 Thess. iii. 5), the tempter, the [Greek: ponêros] (Matt. v. 37; John xvii. 15; Eph. vi. 16), the evil one, and the [Greek: echthros] (Matt. xiii. 39), the enemy. He is apparently identified with Beelzebub (or Beelzebul) in Matt. xii. 26, 27. Jesus appears to recognize the existence of demons belonging to a kingdom of evil under the leadership of Satan "the prince of demons" (Matt. xii. 24, 26, 27), whose works in demonic possessions it is his function to destroy (Mark i. 34, iii. 11, vi. 7; Luke x. 17-20). But he himself conquers Satan in resisting his temptations (Matt. iv. 1-11). Simon is warned against him, and Judas yields to him as tempter (Luke xxii. 31; John xiii. 27). Jesus's cures are represented as a triumph over Satan (Luke x. 18). This Jewish doctrine is found in Paul's letters also. Satan rules over a world of evil, supernatural agencies, whose dwelling is in the lower heavens (Eph. vi. 12): hence he is the "prince of the power of the air" (ii. 2). He is the tempter (1 Thess. iii. 5; 1 Cor. vii. 5), the destroyer (x. 10), to whom the offender is to be handed over for bodily destruction (v. 5), identified with the serpent (Rom. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xi. 3), and probably with Beliar or Belial (vi. 15); and the surrender of man to him brought death into the world (Rom. v. 17). Paul's own "stake in the flesh" is Satan's messenger (2 Cor. xii. 7). According to Hebrews Satan's power over death Jesus destroys by dying (ii. 14). Revelation describes the war in heaven between God with his angels and Satan or the dragon, the "old serpent," the deceiver of the whole world (xii. 9), with his hosts of darkness. After the overthrow of the Beast and the kings of the earth, Satan is imprisoned in the bottomless pit a thousand years (xx. 2). Again loosed to deceive the nations, he is finally cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (xx. 10; cf. Enoch liv. 5, 6; 2 Peter ii. 4). In John's Gospel and Epistles Satan is opposed to Christ. Sinner and murderer from the beginning (1 John iii. 8) and liar by nature (John viii. 44), he enslaves men to sin (viii. 34), causes death (verse 44), rules the present world (xiv. 30), but has no power over Christ or those who are his (xiv. 30, xvi. 11; 1 John v. 18). He will be destroyed by Christ with all his works (John xvi. 33; 1 John iii. 8).

In the common faith of the Gentile churches after the Apostolic Age "the present dominion of evil demons, or of one evil demon, was just as generally presupposed as man's need of redemption, which was regarded as a result of that dominion. The tenacity of this belief may be explained among other things by the living impression of the polytheism that surrounded the communities on every side. By means of this assumption too, humanity seemed to be unburdened, and the presupposed capacity for redemption could, therefore, be justified in its widest range" (Harnack's _History of Dogma_, i. p. 181). While Christ's First Advent delivered believers from Satan's bondage, his overthrow would be completed only by the Second Advent. The Gnostics held that "the present world sprang from a fall of man, or from an undertaking hostile to God, and is, therefore, the product of an evil or intermediate being" (p. 257). Some taught that while the future had been assigned by God to Christ, the devil had received the present age (p. 309). The fathers traced all doctrines not held by the Catholic Church to the devil, and the virtues of heretics were regarded as an instance of the devil transforming himself into an angel of light (ii. 91). Irenaeus ascribes Satan's fall to "pride and arrogance and envy of God's creation"; and traces man's deliverance from Satan to Christ's victory in resisting his temptations; but also, guided by certain Pauline passages, represents the death of Christ "as a ransom paid to the 'apostasy' for men who had fallen into captivity" (ii. 290). He does not admit that Satan has any lawful claim on man, or that God practised a deceit on him, as later fathers taught. This theory of the _atonement_ was formulated by Origen. "By his successful temptation the devil acquired a right over men. God offered Christ's soul for that of men. But the devil was duped, as Christ overcame both him and death" (p. 367). It was held by Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, who uses the phrase _pia fraus_, Augustine, Leo I., and Gregory I., who expresses it in its worst form. "The humanity of Christ was the bait; the fish, the devil, snapped at it, and was left hanging on the invisible hook, Christ's divinity" (iii. 307). In Athanasius the relation of the work of Christ to Satan retires into the background, Gregory of Nazianzus and John of Damascus felt scruples about this view. It is expressly repudiated by Anselm and Abelard. Peter the Lombard asserted it, disregarding these objections. Bernard represents man's bondage to Satan "as righteously permitted as a just retribution for sin," he being "the executioner of the divine justice." Another theory of Origen's found less acceptance. The devil, as a being resulting from God's will, cannot always remain a devil. The possibility of his redemption, however, was in the 5th century branded as a heresy. Persian dualism was brought into contact with Christian thought in the doctrine of Mani; and it is permissible to believe that the gloomy views of Augustine regarding man's condition are due in some measure to this influence. Mani taught that Satan with his demons, sprung from the kingdom of darkness, attacked the realm of light, the earth, defeated man sent against him by the God of light, but was overthrown by the God of light, who then delivered the primeval man (iii. 324). "During the middle ages," says Tulloch, "the belief in the devil was absorbing--saints conceived themselves and others to be in constant conflict with him." This superstition, perhaps at its strongest in the 13th to the 15th century, passed into Protestantism. Luther was always conscious of the presence and opposition of Satan. "As I found he was about to begin again," says Luther, "I gathered together my books, and got into bed. Another time in the night I heard him above my cell walking on the cloister, but as I knew it was the devil I paid no attention to him and went to sleep." He held that this world will pass away with its pleasures, as there can be no real improvement in it, for the devil continues in it to ply his daring and seductive devices (vii. 191). I. A. Dorner (_Christian Doctrine_, iii. p. 93) sums up Protestant doctrine as follows:--"He is brought into relation with natural sinfulness, and the impulse to evil thoughts and deeds is ascribed to him. The dominion of evil over men is also represented as a slavery to Satan, and this as punishment. He has his full power in the extra-Christian world. But his power is broken by Christ, and by his word victory over him is to be won. The power of creating anything is also denied the devil, and only the power of corrupting substances is conceded to him. But it is only at the Last Judgment that his power is wholly annihilated; he is himself delivered up to eternal punishment." This belief in the devil was specially strong in Scotland among both clergy and laity in the 17th century. "The devil was always and literally at hand," says Buckle, "he was haunting them, speaking to them, and tempting them. Go where they would he was there."

In more recent times a great variety of opinions has been expressed on this subject. J. S. Semler denied the reality of demonic possession, and held that Christ in his language accommodated himself to the views of the sick whom he was seeking to cure. Kant regarded the devil as a personification of the radical evil in man. Daub in his _Judas Ishcarioth_ argued that a finite evil presupposes an absolute evil, and the absolute evil as real must be in a person. Schelling regarded the devil as, not a person, but a real principle, a spirit let loose by the freedom of man. Schleiermacher was an uncompromising opponent of the common belief. "The problem remains to seek evil rather in self than in Satan, Satan only showing the limits of our self-knowledge." Dorner has formulated a theory which explains the development of the conception of Satan in the Holy Scriptures as in correspondence with an evolution in the character of Satan. "Satan appears in Scripture under four leading characters:--first as the tempter of freedom, who desires to bring to decision, secondly as the accuser, who by virtue of the law retorts criminality on man; thirdly as the instrument of the Divine, which brings evil and death upon men; fourthly and lastly he is described, especially in the New Testament, as the enemy of God and man." He supposes "a change in Satan in the course of the history of the divine revelation, in conflict with which he came step by step to be a sworn enemy of God and man, especially in the New Testament times, in which, on the other hand, his power is broken at the root by Christ." He argues that "the world-order, being in process as a moral order, permits breaches everywhere into which Satan can obtain entrance" (pp. 99, 102). H. L. Martensen gives even freer rein to speculation. "The evil principle," he says, "has in itself no personality, but attains a progressively universal personality in its kingdom; it has no individual personality, save only in individual creatures, who in an especial manner make themselves its organs; but among these is one creature in whom the principle is so hypostasized that he has become the centre and head of the kingdom of evil" (_Dogmatics_, p. 199). A. Ritschl gives no place in his constructive doctrine to the belief in the devil; but recognizes that the mutual action of individual sinners on one another constitutes a kingdom of sin, opposed to the Kingdom of God (A. E. Garvie, _The Ritschlian Theology_, p. 304). Kaftan affirms that a "doctrine about Satan can as little be established as about angels, as faith can say nothing about it, and nothing is gained by it for the dogmatic explanation of evil. This whole province must be left to the immediate world-view of the pious. The idea of Satan will on account of the Scriptures not disappear from it, and it would be arrogant to wish to set it aside. Only let everyone keep the thought that Satan also stands under the commission of the Almighty God, and that no one must suppose that by leading back his sins to a Satanic temptation he can get rid of his own guilt. To transgress these limits is to assail faith" (_Dogmatik_, p. 348). In the book entitled _Evil and Evolution_ there is "an attempt to turn the light of modern science on to the ancient mystery of evil." The author contends that the existence of evil is best explained by assuming that God is confronted with Satan, who in the process of evolution interferes with the divine designs, an interference which the instability of such an evolving process makes not incredible. Satan is, however, held to be a creature who has by abuse of his freedom been estranged from, and opposed to his Creator, and who at last will be conquered by moral means. W. M. Alexander in his book on demonic possession maintains that "the confession of Jesus as the Messiah or Son of God is the classical criterion of genuine demonic possession" (p. 150), and argues that, as "the Incarnation indicated the establishment of the kingdom of heaven upon earth," there took place "a counter movement among the powers of darkness," of which "genuine demonic possession was one of the manifestations" (p. 249).

Interesting as these speculations are, it may be confidently affirmed that belief in Satan is not now generally regarded as an essential article of the Christian faith, nor is it found to be an indispensable element of Christian experience. On the one hand science has so explained many of the processes of outer nature and of the inner life of man as to leave no room for Satanic agency. On the other hand the modern view of the inspiration of the Scriptures does not necessitate the acceptance of the doctrine of the Scriptures on this subject as finally and absolutely authoritative. The teaching of Jesus even in this matter may be accounted for as either an accommodation to the views of those with whom he was dealing, or more probably as a proof of the limitation of knowledge which was a necessary condition of the Incarnation, for it cannot be contended that as revealer of God and redeemer of men it was imperative that he should either correct or confirm men's beliefs in this respect. The possibility of the existence of evil spirits, organized under one leader Satan to tempt man and oppose God, cannot be denied; the sufficiency of the evidence for such evil agency may, however, be doubted; the necessity of any such belief for Christian thought and life cannot, therefore, be affirmed. (See also DEMONOLOGY; POSSESSION.) (A. E. G.*)

DEVIZES, a market town and municipal borough in the Devizes parliamentary division of Wiltshire, England, 86 m. W. by S. of London by the Great Western railway. Pop. (1901) 6532. Its castle was built on a tongue of land flanked by two deep ravines, and behind this the town grew up in a semicircle on a stretch of bare and exposed tableland. Its main streets, in which a few ancient timbered houses are left, radiate from the market place, where stands a Gothic cross, the gift of Lord Sidmouth in 1814. The Kennet and Avon Canal skirts the town on the N., passing over the high ground through a chain of thirty-nine locks. St John's church, one of the most interesting in Wiltshire, is cruciform, with a massive central tower, based upon two round and two pointed arches. It was originally Norman of the 12th century, and the chancel arch and low vaulted chancel, in this style, are very fine. In the interior several ancient monuments of the Suttons and Heathcotes are preserved, besides some beautiful carved stone work, and two rich ceilings of oak over the chapels. St Mary's, a smaller church, is partly Norman, but was rebuilt in the 15th and again in the 19th century. Its lofty clerestoried nave has an elaborately carved timber roof, and the south porch, though repaired in 1612, preserves its Norman mouldings. The woollen industries of Devizes have lost their prosperity; but there is a large grain trade, with engineering works, breweries, and manufactures of silk, snuff, tobacco and agricultural implements. The town is governed by a mayor, six aldermen and eighteen councillors. Area, 906 acres.

Devizes (_Divisis_, _la Devise_, _De Vies_) does not appear in any historical document prior to the reign of Henry I., when the construction of a castle of exceptional magnificence by Roger, bishop of Salisbury, at once constituted the town an important political centre, and led to its speedy development. After the disgrace of Roger in 1139 the castle was seized by the Crown; in the 14th century it formed part of the dowry of the queens of England, and figured prominently in history until its capture and demolition by Cromwell in the Civil War of the 17th century. Devizes became a borough by prescription, and the first charter from Matilda, confirmed by successive later sovereigns, merely grants exemption from certain tolls and the enjoyment of undisturbed peace. Edward III. added a clause conferring on the town the liberties of Marlborough, and Richard II. instituted a coroner. A gild merchant was granted by Edward I., Edward II. and Edward III., and in 1614 was divided into the three companies of drapers, mercers and leathersellers. The present governing charters were issued by James I. and Charles I., the latter being little more than a confirmation of the former, which instituted a common council consisting of a mayor, a town clerk and thirty-six capital burgesses. These charters were surrendered to Charles II., and a new one was conferred by James II., but abandoned three years later in favour of the original grant. Devizes returned two members to parliament from 1295, until deprived of one member by the Representation of the People Act of 1867, and of the other by the Redistribution Act of 1885. The woollen manufacture was the staple industry of the town from the reign of Edward III. until the middle of the 18th century, when complaints as to the decay of trade began to be prevalent. In the reign of Elizabeth the market was held on Monday, and there were two annual fairs at the feasts of the Purification of the Virgin and the Decollation of John the Baptist. The market was transferred to Thursday in the next reign, and the fairs in the 18th century had become seven in number.

See _Victoria County History, Wiltshire_; _History of Devizes_ (Devizes,
1859).

DEVOLUTION, WAR OF (1667-68), the name applied to the war which arose out of Louis XIV.'s claims to certain Spanish territories in right of his wife Maria Theresa, upon whom the ownership was alleged to have "devolved." (See, for the military operations, DUTCH WARS.) The war was ended by the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1668.

DEVON, EARLS OF. From the family of De Redvers (De Ripuariis; Riviers), who had been earls of Devon from about 1100, this title passed to Hugh de Courtenay (c. 1275-1340), the representative of a prominent family in the county (see Gibbon's "digression" in chap. lxi. of the _Decline and Fall_, ed. Bury), but was subsequently forfeited by Thomas Courtenay (1432-1462), a Lancastrian who was beheaded after the battle of Towton. It was revived in 1485 in favour of Edward Courtenay (d. 1509), whose son Sir William (d. 1511) married Catherine, daughter of Edward IV. Too great proximity to the throne led to his attainder, but his son Henry (c. 1498-1539) was restored in blood in 1517 as earl of Devon, and in 1525 was created marquess of Exeter; his second wife was a daughter of William Blount, 4th Lord Mountjoy. The title again suffered forfeiture on Henry's execution, but in 1553 it was recreated for his son Edward (1526-1556). At the latter's death it became dormant in the Courtenay family, till in 1831 a claim by a collateral branch was allowed by the House of Lords, and the earldom of Devon was restored to the peerage, still being held by the head of the Courtenays. The earlier earls of Devon were referred to occasionally as earls of Devonshire, but the former variant has prevailed, and the latter is now solely used for the earldom and dukedom held by the Cavendishes (see DEVONSHIRE, EARLS AND DUKES OF, and also the article COURTENAY).

DEVONIAN SYSTEM, in geology, the name applied to series of stratified fossiliferous and igneous rocks that were formed during the Devonian period, that is, in the interval of time between the close of the Silurian period and the beginning of the Carboniferous; it includes the marine Devonian and an estuarine Old Red Sandstone series of strata. The name "Devonian" was introduced in 1829 by Sir R. Murchison and A. Sedgwick to describe the older rocks of Cornwall and Devon which W. Lonsdale had shown, from an examination of the fossils, to be intermediate between the Silurian and Carboniferous. The same two workers also carried on further researches upon the same rocks of the continent, where already several others, F. Roemer, H. E. Beyrich, &c., were endeavouring to elucidate the succession of strata in this portion of the "Transition Series." The labours of these earlier workers, including in addition to those already mentioned, the brothers F. and G. von Sandberger, A. Dumont, J. Gosselet, E. J. A. d'Archiac, E. P. de Verneuil and H. von Dechen, although somewhat modified by later students, formed the foundation upon which the modern classification of the Devonian rocks is based.

_Stratigraphy of the Devonian Facies._

Notwithstanding the fact that it was in Devonshire and Cornwall that
the Devonian rocks were first distinguished, it is in central Europe
that the succession of strata is most clearly made out, and here, too,
their geological position was first indicated by the founders of the
system, Sedgwick and Murchison.

_Continental Europe._--Devonian rocks occupy a large area in the
centre of Europe, extending from the Ardennes through the south of
Belgium across Rhenish Prussia to Darmstadt. They are best known from
the picturesque gorges which have been cut through them by the Rhine
below Bingen and by the Moselle below Treves. They reappear from under
younger formations in Brittany, in the Harz and Thuringia, and are
exposed in Franconia, Saxony, Silesia, North Moravia and eastern
Galicia. The principal subdivisions of the system in the more typical
areas are indicated in Table I.

This threefold subdivision, with a central mass of calcareous strata,
is traceable westwards through Belgium (where the Calcaire de Givet
represents the _Stringocephalus_ limestone of the Eifel) and eastwards
into the Harz. The rocks reappear with local petrographical
modifications, but with a remarkable persistence of general
palaeontological characters, in Eastern Thuringia, Franconia, Saxony,
Silesia, the north of Moravia and East Galicia. Devonian rocks have
been detected among the crumpled rocks of the Styrian Alps by means of
the evidence of abundant corals, cephalopods, gasteropods,
lamellibranchs and other organic remains. Perhaps in other tracts of
the Alps, as well as in the Carpathian range, similar shales,
limestones and dolomites, though as yet unfossiliferous, but
containing ores of silver, lead, mercury, zinc, cobalt and other
metals, may be referable to the Devonian system.

In the centre of Europe, therefore, the Devonian rocks consist of a
vast thickness of dark-grey sandy and shaly rocks, with occasional
seams of limestone, and in particular with one thick central
calcareous zone. These rocks are characterized in the lower zones by
numerous broad-winged spirifers and by peculiar trilobites (_Phacops_,
_Homalonotus_, &c.) which, though generically like those of the
Silurian system, are specifically distinct. The central calcareous
zone abounds in corals and crinoids as well as in numerous
brachiopods. In the highest bands a profusion of coiled cephalopods
(_Clymenia_) occurs in some of the limestones, while the shales are
crowded with a small but characteristic ostracod crustacean
(_Cypridina_). Here and there traces of fishes have been found, more
especially in the Eifel, but seldom in such a state of preservation as
to warrant their being assigned to any definite place in the
zoological scale. Subsequently, however, E. Beyrich has described from
Gerolstein in the Eifel an undoubted species of _Pterichthys_, which,
as it cannot be certainly identified with any known form, he names _P.
Rhenanus_. A _Coccosteus_ has been described by F. A. Roemer from the
Harz, and still later one has been cited from Bicken near Herborn by
V. Koenen; but, as Beyrich points out, there may be some doubt as to
whether the latter is not a _Pterichthys_. A _Ctenacanthus_, seemingly
undistinguishable from the _C. Bohemicus_ of Barrande's Étage G, has
also been obtained from the Lower Devonian "Nereitenschichten" of
Thuringia. The characteristic _Holoptychius nobilissimus_ has been
detected in the Psammite de Condroz, which in Belgium forms a
characteristic sandy portion of the Upper Devonian rocks. These are
interesting facts, as helping to link the Devonian and Old Red
Sandstone types together. But they are as yet too few and unsupported
to warrant any large deduction as to the correlations between these
types.

It is in the north-east of Europe that the Devonian and Old Red
Sandstone appear to be united into one system, where the limestones
and marine organisms of the one are interstratified with the
fish-bearing sandstones and shales of the other. In Russia, as was
shown in the great work _Russia and the Ural Mountains_ by Murchison,
De Verneuil and Keyserling, rocks intermediate between the Upper
Silurian and Carboniferous Limestone formations cover an extent of
surface larger than the British Islands. This wide development arises
not from the thickness but from the undisturbed horizontal character
of the strata. Like the Silurian formations described elsewhere, they
remain to this day nearly as flat and unaltered as they were
originally laid down. Judged by mere vertical depth, they present but
a meagre representative of the massive Devonian greywacke and
limestone of Germany, or of the Old Red Sandstone of Britain. Yet vast
though the area is over which they form the surface rock, it is
probably only a small portion of their total extent; for they are
found turned up from under the newer formations along the flank of the
Ural chain. It would thus seem that they spread continuously across
the whole breadth of Russia in Europe. Though almost everywhere
undisturbed, they afford evidence of some terrestrial oscillation
between the time of their formation and that of the Silurian rocks on
which they rest, for they are found gradually to overlap Upper and
Lower Silurian formations.

TABLE I.

+-------------+-------------------+------------------------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | | | | Brittany and | | | | Stages. | Ardennes. | Rhineland. | Normandy. | Bohemia. | Harz. | / +-------------+-------------------+------------------------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | | | Limestone of | Cypridina slates. | Slates of | | Cypridina | U | | | Etroeungt. | Pön sandstone (Sauerland). | Rostellec. | | slates. | P | | Famennien | Psammites of | Crumbly limestone (Kramen- | | | Clymenia | P | | (Clymenia | Condroz (sandy | zelkalk) with Clymenia. | | | limestone and | E | | beds). | series). | Neheim slates in Sauerland, | | | limestone of | R | | | Slates of Famenne | and diabases, tuffs, &c., | | | Altenau. | | | | (shaly series). | in Dillmulde, &c. | | | | D / +-------------+-------------------+------------------------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+ E \ | | Slates of | Adorf limestone of Waldeck | Limestone of | | Iberg limestone | V | | | Matagne. | and shales with Goniatites | Cop-Choux | | and Winterberg | O | | Frasnien | Limestones, marls | (Eifel and Aix) = | and green | | limestone; | N | |(Intumesce- | and shale of | Budesheimer shales. | slates of | | also Adorf | I | | cens beds). | Frasne, and | Marls, limestone and dolomite| Travuliors. | | limestone and | A | | | red marble of | with Rhynchonella cuboides | | | shales | N | | | Flanders. | (Flinz in part). | | | (Budesheim). | . | | | | Iberg limestone of Dillmulde.| | | | \ +-------------+-------------------+------------------------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+ / | | Limestone of | Stringocephalus limestone, |Limestones | H_{2} (of | Stringocephalus | M | | | Givet. | ironstone of Brilon and | of Chalonnes,| Barrande) dark | shales with | I | | Givérien | | Lahnmulde. | Montjean and | plant-bearing | Flaser and | D | |(Stringocep- | | Upper Lenne shales, crinoidal| l'Ecochère. | shales. | Knollenkalk. | D | | halus beds).| | limestone of Eifel, red | | | Wissenbach | L | | | | sandstones of Aix. | | | slates. | E | | | | Tuffs and diabases of Brilon | | H_{1}. | | | | | | and Lahnmulde. | | | | D / | | | Red conglomerate of Aix. | | | | E \ +-------------+-------------------+------------------------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+ V | | | Calceola slates | Calceola beds, Wissenbach | Slates of | G_{3} Cephalo- | Calceola beds. | O | | | and limestones | slates, Lower Lenne beds, | Porsguen, | pod limestone. | Nereite slates, | N | | Eifélien | of Couvin. | Güntroder limestone and | greywacke | G_{2} Tentacu- | slates of | I | | (Calceola | Greywacke with | clay slate of Lahnmulde, | of Fret. | lite limestone.| Wieda and | A | | beds). | Spirifer | Dillmulde, Wildungen, | | G_{3} Knollen- | limestones of | N | | | cultrijugatus. | Griefenstein limestone, | | kalk and | Hasselfeld. | . | | | | Ballersbach limestone. | | mottled Mnenian| | \ | | | | | limestone. | | +-------------+-------------------+------------------------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+ / | Coblentzien |Greywacke of | Upper Coblentz slates. | Limestones | | Haupt quartzite | L | | | Hierges. | Red sandstone of Eifel, | of Erbray, | | (of Lossen) = | O | | |Shales and conglom-| Coblentz quartzite, lower | Brulon, Viré| | Rammelsberg | W | | | erate of Burnot | Coblentz slates. | and Néhou, | | slates, Schal- | E | | | with quartzite, | Hunsrück and Siegener | greywacke | | lker slates = | R | | | of Bierlé and | greywacke and slates. | of Faou, | | Kahleberg | | | | red slates of | Taunus quartzite and | sandstone | | sandstone. | D | | | Vireux, greywacke | greywacke. | of Gahard. | F-{2} of | Hercynian slates| E / | | of Montigny, | | | Barrande. | and lime- | V \ | | sandstone of Anor.| | | White Konjeprus | stones. | O | +-------------+-------------------+------------------------------+--------------+ Limestone with | | N | | Gédinnien |Slates of St Hubert| Slates of Gédinne. | Slates and | Hercynian | | I | | | and Fooz, slates | | quartzites | fauna. | | A | | | of Mondrepuits, | | of Plou- | | | N | | | arkose of Weis- | | gastel. | | | . | | | mes, conglomerate | | | | | | | | of Fèpin. | | | | | \ +-------------+-------------------+------------------------------+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+

The chief interest of the Russian rocks of this age lies in the fact,
first signalized by Murchison and his associates, that they unite
within themselves the characters of the Devonian and the Old Red
Sandstone types. In some districts they consist largely of limestones,
in others of red sandstones and marls. In the former they present
molluscs and other marine organisms of known Devonian species; in the
latter they afford remains of fishes, some of which are specifically
identical with those of the Old Red Sandstone of Scotland. The
distribution of these two palaeontological types in Russia is traced
by Murchison to the lithological characters of the rocks, and
consequent original diversities of physical conditions, rather than to
differences of age. Indeed cases occur where in the same band of rock
Devonian shells and Old Red Sandstone fishes lie commingled. In the
belt of the formation which extends southwards from Archangel and the
White Sea, the strata consist of sands and marls, and contain only
fish remains. Traced through the Baltic provinces, they are found to
pass into red and green marls, clays, thin limestones and sandstones,
with beds of gypsum. In some of the calcareous bands such fossils
occur as _Orthis striatula_, _Spiriferina prisca_, _Leptaena
productoides_, _Spirifer calcaratus_, _Spirorbis omphaloides_ and
_Orthoceras subfusiforme_. In the higher beds _Holoptychius_ and other
well-known fishes of the Old Red Sandstone occur. Followed still
farther to the south, as far as the watershed between Orel and
Voronezh, the Devonian rocks lose their red colour and sandy
character, and become thin-bedded yellow limestones, and dolomites
with soft green and blue marls. Traces of salt deposits are indicated
by occasional saline springs. It is evident that the geographical
conditions of the Russian area during the Devonian period must have
closely resembled those of the Rhine basin and central England during
the Triassic period. The Russian Devonian rocks have been classified
in Table II. There is an unquestionable passage of the uppermost
Devonian rocks of Russia into the base of the Carboniferous system.

TABLE II.

+---------------------------------+-----------------+------------------+-----------------------------+ | North-West Russia. | Central Russia. | Petchoraland. | Ural Region. | / +---------------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+-----------------------------+ U | | Red sandstone | Limestones with | Limestones with | Domanik slates | Cypridina slates, Clymenia | P | | (Old Red). | Spirifer | Arca oreliana. | and limestones | limestones (Famennien). | P < | | Verneuili and | Limestones with | with Sp. | Limestones with Gephyoceras | E | | | Sp. Archiaci. | Sp. Verneuili | Verneuili. | intumescens and | R | | | | and Sp. | | Rhynchonella cuboides | | | | | Archiaci. | | (Frasnien). | \ +---------------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+-----------------------------+ M / | Dolomites and limestones | Marl with | Limestones and slates with | I | | with | Spirifer Anossofi | Sp. Anossofi (Givétien). | D < | Spirifer Anossofi. | and corals. | Limestones and slates with | D | | | Pentamerus baschkiricus | L | | Lower sandstone (Old Red). | (Eifélien). | E \ +---------------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+-----------------------------+ / | | | | Limestones and slates of | L | | | | | the Yuresan and Ufa rivers,| O | | Absent. | | | slate and quartzite, | W < | | | | marble of Byclaya and | E | | | | | of Bogoslovsk, phyllitic | R | | | | | schists and quartzite. | \ +---------------+-----------------+-----------------+------------------+-----------------------------+

The Lower Devonian of the Harz contains a fauna which is very
different from that of the Rhenish region; to this facies the name
"Hercynian" has been applied, and the correlation of the strata has
been a source of prolonged discussion among continental geologists. A
similar fauna appears in Lower Devonian of Bohemia, in Brittany
(limestone of Erbray) and in the Urals. The Upper Devonian of the Harz
passes up into the Culm.

In the eastern Thuringian Fichtelgebirge the upper division is
represented by _Clymenia_ limestone and _Cypridina_ slates with Adorf
limestone, diabase and Planschwitzer tuff in the lower part. The
middle division has diabases and tuffs at the top with Tentaculite and
Nereite shales and limestones below. The upper part of the Lower
Devonian, the sandy shale of Steinach, rests unconformably upon
Silurian rocks. In the Carnic Alps are coral reef limestones, the
equivalents of the Iberg limestone, which attain an enormous
thickness; these are underlain by coral limestones with fossils
similar to those of the Konjeprus limestone of Bohemia; below these
are shales and nodular limestones with goniatites. The Devonian rocks
of Poland are sandy in the lower, and more calcareous in the upper
parts. They are of interest because while the upper portions agree
closely with the Rhenish facies, from the top of the Coblentzien
upwards, in the sandy beds near the base Old Red Sandstone fishes
(_Coccosteus_, &c.) are found. In France Devonian rocks are found well
developed in Brittany, as indicated in the table, also in Normandy and
Maine; in the Boulonnais district only the middle and upper divisions
are known. In south France in the neighbourhood of Cabrières, about
Montpellier and in the Montagne Noire, all three divisions are found
in a highly calcareous condition. Devonian rocks are recognized,
though frequently much metamorphosed, on both the northern and
southern flanks of the Pyrenees; while on the Spanish peninsula they
are extensively developed. In Asturias they are no less than 3280 ft.
thick, all three divisions and most of the central European
subdivisions are present. In general, the Lower Devonian fossils of
Spain bear a marked resemblance to those of Brittany.

_Asia._--From the Ural Mountains eastward, Devonian rocks have been
traced from point to point right across Asia. In the Altai Mountains
they are represented by limestones of Coblentzien age with a fauna
possessing Hercynian features. The same features are observed in the
Devonian of the Kougnetsk basin, and in Turkestan. Well-developed
quartzites with slates and diabases are found south of Yarkand and
Khotan. Middle and Upper Devonian strata are widespread in China.
Upper Devonian rocks are recorded from Persia, and from the Hindu Kush
on the right bank of the Chitral river.

_England._--In England the original Devonian rocks are developed in
Devon and Cornwall and west Somerset. In north Devonshire these rocks
consist of sandstones, grits and slates, while in south Devon there
are, in addition, thick beds of massive limestone, and intercalations
of lavas and tuffs. The interpretation of the stratigraphy in this
region is a difficult matter, partly on account of the absence of good
exposures with fossils, and partly through the disturbed condition of
the rocks. The system has been subdivided as shown in Table III.

TABLE III.