religion could not lie in any unintelligible element; though we cannot know the real essence of God or of any of his creatures, yet our beliefs about God must be thoroughly consistent with reason. Afterwards, Toland discussed, with considerable real learning and much show of candcur, the comparative evidence for the canonical and apocryphal Scriptures, and demanded a careful and complete historical examination of the grounds on which our acceptance of the New Testament canon rests. He contributed little to the solution of the problem, but forced the investigation of the canon alike on theologians and the reading public. Again, he sketched a view of early church history, further worked out by Semler, and surprisingly like that which, as elaborated by the Tübingen school, is still held with modifications by a large number of students of Christian antiquity. He tried to show, both from Scripture and extra-canonical literature, that the primitive church, so far from being an incorporate body of believers with the same creed and customs, really consisted of two schools, each possessing its "own gospel" -a school of Ebionites or Judaizing Christians, and the more liberal school of Paul. These parties, consciously but amicably differing in their whole relation to the Jewish law and the outside world, were subsequently forced into a non-natural uniformity. The cogency of Toland's arguments was weakened by his manifest love of paradox. Collins, who had created much excitement by his Discourse of Free-thinking, insisting on the value and necessity of unprejudiced inquiry, published at a later stage of the deistic controversy the famous argument on the evidences of Christianity. Christianity is founded on Judaism; its main prop is the argument from the fulfilment of prophecy. Yet no interpretation or re-arrangement of the text of Old Testament prophecies will secure a fair and non-allegorical correspondence between these and their alleged fulfilment in the New Testament. The inference is not expressly drawn. Collins indicates the possible extent to which the Jews may have been indebted to Chaldeans and Egyptians for their theological views, especially as great part of the Old Testament would appear to have been re-modelled by Ezra; and, after dwelling on the points in which the prophecies attributed to Daniel differ from all other Old Testament predictions, he states the greater number of the arguments still used to show that the book of Daniel deals with events past and contemporaneous, and is from the pen of a writer of the Maccabean period. Woolston, at first to all appearance working earnestly in behalf of an allegorical but believing interpretation of the New Testament miracles, ended by assaulting, with a yet unknown violence of speech, the absurdity of accepting them as actual historical events, and did his best to overthrow the credibility of Christ's principal miracles. The bitterness of his outspoken invective against the clergy, against all priestcraft and priesthood, was a new feature in deistic literature, and injured the author more than it furthered his cause. Tindal's aim seems to have been a sober statement of the whole case in favour of natural religion, with copious but moderately worded criticism of such beliefs and usages in the Christian and other religions as he conceived to be either non-religious or directly immoral and unwholesome. The work in which he endeavoured to prove that true Christianity is as old as the creation, and is really but the republication of the gospel of nature, soon gained the name of the "Deist's Bible." Morgan criticised with great freedom the moral character of the persons and events of Old Testament history, developing the theory of conscious "accommodation on the part of the leaders of the Jewish church. This accommodation of truth, by altering the form and substance of it to meet the views and secure the favour of ignorant and bigoted contemporaries, Morgan attributes also to the apostles and to Jesus. He likewise expands at great length a theory of the origin of the Catholic Church much like that sketched by Toland, but assumes that Paul and his party, latterly at least, were distinctly hostile to the Judaical party of their fellow-believers in Jesus as the Messias, while the college of the original twelve apostles and their adherents viewed Paul and his followers with suspicion and disfavour. Persecution from without Morgan regards as the influence which mainly forced the antagonistic parties into the oneness of the catholic and orthodox church. Annet made it his special work to invalidate belief in the resurrection of Christ, and to discredit the work of Paul. Chubb, the least learnedly educated of the deists, did more than any of them, save Herbert, to round his system into a logical whole. From the New Testament be sought to. show that the teaching of Christ substantially coincides with natural religion as he ur.derstood it. But his main contention is that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life, not the reception of a system of truths or facts, but a pious effort to live in accordance with God's will here, in the hope of joining him hereafter. Chubb dwells with special emphasis on the fact that Christ preached the gospel to the poor, and argues, as Tindal had done, that the gospel must therefore be accessible to all men without any need for learned study of evidences for miracles, and intelligible to the meanest capacity. Dodwell's ingenious thesis, that Christianity is not founded on argument, was certainly not meant as an aid to faith; and, though its starting point is different from all other deistical works, it may safely be reckoued amongst their number. Though himself contemporary with the earlier deists, Bolingbroke's principal works were posthumously published after interest in the controversy had declined. His whole strain, in sharp contrast to that of most of his predecessors, is cynical and satirical, and suggests that most of the matters discussed were of small personal concern to himself. He gives fullest scope to the ungenerous view that a vast proportion of professedly, revealed truth was ingeniously palmed off by the more cunning on the more ignorant for the convenience of keeping the latter under. But he writes with keenness and wit, and knows well how to use the materials already often taken advantage of by earlier deists. In the substance of what they received as natural religion, the deists were for the most part agreed; Herbert's articles continued to contain the fundamentals of their theology. Religion, though not identified with morality, had its most important outcome in a faithful following of the eternal laws of morality, regarded as the will of God. With the virtuous life was further to be conjoined a humble disposi tion to adore the Creator, avoiding all factitious forms of worship as worse than useless. The small value attributed to all outward and special forms of service, and the want of any sympathetic craving for the communion of saints, saved the deists from attempting to found a free-thinking church, a creedless communion. They seem generally to have inclined to a quietistic accommodation to established forms of faith, till better times came. They steadfastly sought to eliminate the miraculous from theological belief, and to expel.from the system of religious truth all debatable, difficult, or mysterious articles. They aimed at a rational and intelligible faith, professedly in order to make religion, in all its width and depth, the heritage of every man. They regarded with as much suspicion the notion of a "peculiar people" of God, as of a unique revelation, and insisted on the salvability of the heathen. They rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, and protested against mediatorship, atonement, and the imputed righteousness of Christ, always laying more stress on the teach theological thought. Yet while the seed they sowed was ing of Christ than on the teaching of the church about | seemed therefore entitled to leave their mark on subsequent The general tendency of the deistical writings is sufficiently self-consistent to justify a common name. But it is vain to speak of deism as a compact system, or to regard it as the outcome of any one line of philosophical thought. Of matters generally regarded as pertaining to natural religion, that on which they were least agreed was the certainty, philosophical demonstrability, and moral significance of the immortality of the soul, so that the deists have sometimes been grouped into "mortal" and "inmortal" deists. For some the belief in future rewards and punishments was, an essential of religion; some seem to have questioned the doctrine as a whole; and, while others made it a basis of morality, Shaftesbury protested against the ordinary theological form of the belief as immoral. No two thinkers could well be more opposed than Shaftesbury and Hobbes; yet sometimes ideas from both were combined by the same writer. Collins was a pronounced necessitarian; Morgan regarded the denial of free will as tantamount to atheism. And nothing can be more misleading than to assume that the belief in a Creator, existent wholly apart from the work of his hands, was characteristic of the deists as a body. In none of them is any theory on the subject specially prominent; save in their denial of miracles, of supernatural revelation, and a special redemptive interposition of God in history, they seem to have thought of providence much as the mass of their opponents did. Herbert starts his chief theological work with the design of vindicating God's providence. Shaftesbury vigorously protests against the notion of a wholly transcendent God. Morgan more than once expresses a theory that would now be pronounced one of immanence. Toland, the inventor of the name of pantheism, was notoriously, for a great part of his life, in some sort a pantheist. And while as thinkers they diverged in their opinions, so too the deists differed radically from one another in their character, in reverence for their subject, and in religious earnestness and moral worth. The deists were not powerful writers; none of them was distinguished by wide and accurate scholarship; hardly any was either a deep or comprehensive thinker. But though they generally had the best scholarship of England against them, they were bold, acute, well-informed men; they appreciated more fully than their contemporaries not a few truths now all but universally accepted; and they The fault was not wholly in the subjectivism of the movement. But the subjectivism that founded its theology on the "common sense" of the individual was accompanied by a fatal pseudo-universalism which, cutting away all that was peculiar, individual, and most intense in all religions, left in any one of them but a lifeless form. A theology consisting of a few vague generalities was sufficient to sustain the piety of the best of the deists; but it had not the concreteness or intensity necessary to take a firm hold on those whom it emancipated from the old beliefs. The negative side of deism came to the front, and, communicated with fatal facility, seems ultimately to have constituted the deism that was commonly professed at the clubs of the wits and the tea-tables of polite society. But the intenser religious life before which deism fell was also a revolt against the abstract and argumentative orthodoxy of the time. That the deists appreciated fully the scope of difficulties in Christian theology and the sacred books is not their most noteworthy feature; but that they made a stand, sometimes cautiously, often with outspoken fearlessness, against the presupposition that the Bible is the religion of Protestants. They themselves gave way to another presup position equally fatal to true historical research, though in great measure common to them and their opponents, It was assumed by deists in debating against the orthodox, as it is now by orthodox Protestants in contending against the Romish Church, that the flood of error in the hostile camp was due to the benevolent cunning or deliberate selfseeking of unscrupulous men, held to by the ignorant with the obstinacy of prejudice. Yet deism deserves to be remembered as a strenuous protest against bibliolatry in every degree and against all traditionalism in theology. It sought to look not a few facts full in the face, from a new point of view and with a thoroughly modern, though unhistorical spirit. It was not a religious movement; and though, as a defiance of the accepted theology, its character was mainly theological, the deistical crusade belongs, not to the history of the church, or of dogma, but to the history of general culture. It was an attitude of mind, not a body of doctrine; its nearest parallel is probably to be found in the eclectic strivings of the Renaissance philosophy and the modernizing tendencies of cisalpine humanism. The controversy was assumed to be against prejudice, ignorance, obscurantism; what monks were to Erasmus the clergy as such were to Woolston. Yet English deism was in many ways characteristically English. The deists were, as usually happens with the leaders of English thought, no class of professional men, but represented every rank in the community. They made their appeal in the mother tongue to all men who could read and think, and sought to reduce the controversy to its most direct practical issue, making it turn as much as possible on hard facts or the data of common sense. And, with but one or two exceptions, they avoided wildness in their language as much as in the general scheme of theology they proposed. If at times they had recourse to ambiguity of speech and veiled polemic, this might be partly excused by the death of Aikinhead on the scaffold, and Woolston's imprisonment. French deism, the direct progeny of the English movement, was equally short-lived. Voltaire was to the end a deist of the school of Bolingbroke; Rousseau could have claimed kindred with the nobler deists. Diderot was for a time heartily in sympathy with deistic thought; and the Encyclopédie was in its earlier portion an organ of deism. But as Locke's philosophy became in France sensationalism, and as Locke's pregnant question, reiterated by Collins, how we know that the divine power might not confer thought on matter, led the way to dogmatic materialism, so deism soon gave way to forms of thought more directly and extremely subversive of the traditional theology. In Germany there was a native free-thinking theology nearly contemporary with that of England, whence it was greatly developed and supplemented. The compact rational philosophy of Wolff nourished a theological rationalism which in Reimarus was wholly undistinguishable from dogmatic deism; while, in the case of the historico-critical school to which Semler belonged, the distinction is not always easily drawn-although these rationalists professedly recognized in Scripture a real divine revelation, mingled with local and temporary elements. It deserves to be noted here that the former, the theology of the Aufklärung, was, like that of the deists, destined to a shortlived notoriety; whereas the solid, accurate, and scholarly researches of the rationalist critics of Germany, undertaken with no merely polemical spirit, not only form an epoch in the history of theology, but have taken, a permanent place in the body of theological science. Ere rationalismus vulgaris fell before the combined assault of Schleiernacher's subjective theology and the deeper historical insight of the Hegelians, it had found a refuge successively in the Kantian postulates of the practical reason, and in the vague but earnest faith-philosophy of Jacobi. In England, though the deists were forgotten, their spirit was not wholly dead. For men like Hume and Gibbon the standpoint of deism was long left behind; yet Gibbon's famous two chapters might well have been written by a deist. Even now, between scientific atheism and speculative agnosticism on the one hand and church orthodoxy on the other, many seem to cling to a theology nearly allied to deism. Rejecting miracles and denying the infallibility of Scripture, protesting against Calvinistic views of sovereign grace and having no interest in evangelical Arminianism, the faith of such inquirers seems fairly to coincide with that of the deists. Wherever religious indifferentism is rife, the less generous forms of deism are still alive. And even some cultured theologians, the historical representatives of latitudinarianism, seem to accept the great body of what was contended for by the deists, though they have a fuller appreciation of the power of spiritual truth, and a truer insight into the ways of God with man in the history of the world. The deists displayed a singular incapacity to understand the true conditions of history; yet amongst them there were some who pointed the way to the truer, more generous interpretation of the past. When Shaftesbury wrote that "religion is still a discipline, and progress of the soul towards perfection," he gave birth to the same thought that was afterwards hailed in Lessing's Erziehung des Menschengeschlechtes as the dawn of a fuller and a purer light on the history of religion and on the development of the spiritual life of mankind. See Leland's View of the Principal Deistical Writers, 2 vols. 1754; Lechler's Geschichte des Englischen Deismus, 1841; Rev. John Hunt, Religious Thought in England, 3 vols. 1870-72; Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the 18th Century, 2 vols. 1876. (D. P.) DEJANIRA, the wife of Hercules. See HERCULES. DEKKER, JEREMIAS DE (1610–1666), a Dutch poet, ras born at Dort, in 1610. He received his entire | education from his father, a native of Antwerp, who, having embraced the reformed religion, had been compelled to take refuge in Holland. Entering his father's business at an early age, he found leisure to cultivate his taste for literature and especially for poetry, and to acquire without assistance a competent knowledge of English, French, Latin, and Italian. His first poem was a paraphrase of the Lamentations of Jeremiah (Klaagliedern van Jeremias), which was followed by translations and imitations of Horace, Juvenal, and other Latin poets. The most important of his original poems were a collection of epigrams (Puntdichten) and a satire in praise of avarice (L der Geldzucht). The latter is his best known work. Written in a vein of light and yet effective irony, it is usually ranked by critics along with Erasmus's Praise of Folly. Dekker died at Amsterdam in November 1666. A complete collection of his poems, edited by Brouerius van Nideck, was published at Amsterdam in 1726 under the title Exercises Poétiques (2 vols. 4to). Selections from his poems are included in Siegenbeck's Proeven van nederduitsche Dichtkunde (1823), and from his epigrams in Geijsbeek's Epigrammatische Anthologie, 1827. DEKKER, THOMAS, dramatist. It is impossible to make out, from the scanty records of Dekker's personal life, what manner of man he was. His name occurs frequently in Henslowe's Diary during the last year of the 16th century; he is mentioned there as receiving loans and payments for writing plays in conjunction with Ben Jonson, Chettle, Haughton, and Day, and he would appear to have been then in the most active employment as a playwright. The titles of the plays on which he was engaged from April 1599 to March 1599-1600 are Troilus and Cressida, Orestes Fures, Agamemnon, The Stepmother's Tragedy, Bear a Brain, Pagge of Plymouth, Robert the Second, Patient Grissel, The Shoemaker's Holiday, Truth's Supplication to Candlelight, The Spanish Moor's Tragedy, The Seven Wise Masters. At that date it is evident that Dekker's services were in great request for the stage. He is first mentioned in the Diary two years before, as having sold a book; the payments in 1599 are generally made in advance, "in earnest" of work to be done. In the case of three of the above plays, Orestes Fures, Truth's Supplica tion, and the Shoemaker's Holiday, Dekker is paid as the sole author. Only the Shoemaker's Holiday has been preserved; it was published in 1600. It would be unsafe to argue from the classical subjects of some of these plays that Dekker was then a young man from the university, who had come up like so many others to make a living by writing for the stage. Classical knowledge was then in the air; playwrights in want of a subject were content with translations, if they did not know the originals. However educated, Dekker was then a young man just out of his teens, if he spoke with any accuracy when he said that he was threescore in 1637; and it was not in scholarly themes that he was destined to find his true vein. The call for the publication of the Shoemaker's Holiday, which deals with the life of the city, showed him where his strength lay. To give a general idea of the substance of Dekker's plays, there is no better way than to call him the Dickens of the Elizabethan period. The two men were as unlike as possible in their habits of work, Dekker having apparently all the thriftlessness and impecunious shamelessness of Micawber himself. Dekker's Bohemianism appears in the slightness and hurry of his work, a strong contrast to the thoroughness and rich completeness of every labour to which Dickens applied himself; perhaps also in the exquisite freshness and sweetness of his songs, and the natural charm of stray touches of expression and description in his plays. But he was like Dickens in the bent of his genius towards the representation of the life around him in -an more successful combination with Dekker than Webster; the Honest Whore, or the Converted Courtesan, is generally regarded as the best that bears Dekker's name, and in it he had the assistance of Middleton, although the assistance was so immaterial as not to be worth acknowledging in the title-page. Still that Middleton, a man of little genius but of much practical talent and robust humour, was serviceable to Dekker in determining the form of the play may well be believed. The two wrote another play in concert, the Roaring Girl, for which Middleton probably contributed a good deal of the matter. as well as a more symmetrical form than Dekker seems to have been capable of devising. In the Witch of Edmonton, except in a few scenes, it is difficult to trace the hand of Dekker with any certainty; his collaborateurs were John Ford and William Rowley; to Ford probably belongs the intense brooding and murderous wrath of the old hag, which are too direct and hard in their energy for Dekker, while Rowley may be supposed to be responsible for the delineation of country life. London, as well as in the humorous kindliness of his way In all the serious parts of Dekker's plays there is a charming delicacy of touch, and his smallest scraps of song are bewitching; but his plays, as plays, owe much more to the interest of the characters and the incidents than to any excellence of construction. We see what use could be made of his materials by a stronger intellect in Westward Ho! which he wrote in conjunction with John Webster. The play, somehow, though the parts are more firmly knit together, and it has more unity of purpose, is not so interesting as Dekker's unaided work. Middleton formed a When Langhaine wrote his Account of the English Dramatic Poets in 1691, he spoke of Dekker as being more famous for the contention he had with Ben Jonson for the bays, than for any great reputation he had gained by his own writings." This is an opinion that could not be professed now, when Dekker's work is read. In the contention with Ben Jonson, one of the most celebrated quarrels of authors, the origin of which is matter of dispute, Dekker seems to have had very much the best of it. We can imagine that Jonson's attack was stinging at the time, because it seems to be full of sarcastic personalities, but it is dull enough now when nobody knows what Dekker was like, nor what was the character of his mother. There is nothing in the Poetaster that has any point as applied to Dekker's powers as a dramatist, while on the contrary the Untrussing of the Humorous Poet is full of pungent ridicule of Jonson's style, and of retorts and insults conceived in the happiest spirit of good-natured mockery. Dekker has been accused of poverty of invention in adopting the characters of the Poetaster, but it is of the very pith of the jest that Dekker should have set on Jonson's own foul-mouthed Captain Tucca to abuse Horace himself. Dekker's plays were published in the following order:-The Shoemaker's Holiday, 1600; The Pleasant Comedy of old Fortunatus, 1600; Satiromastrix, 1602; Patient Grissel in conjunction with Chettle and Haughton) 1603; The Honest Whore (Part i.) 1604; The Whore of Babylon, 1607; Westward Ho Northward Hol and Sir Thomas Wyatt (in conjunction with Webster), 1607; The Roaring Girl (in conjunction with Middleton), 1611; If it be not good, the Devil is in it, 1612; The Virgin Martyr (in conjunction with Massinger), 1622; Match Me in London, 1631; The Wonder of a Kingdom, 1636; The Sun's Darling (not published till 1656); and The Witch of Edmonton (written in conjunction with Rowley and Ford), 1658. An edition of the collected dramatic works of Dekker is published by John Pearson. Some of his prose tracts, of which he wrote many, are reprinted by the Shakespeare Society, notably The Seven Deadly Sins of London and The Gull's Hornbook. (W. M.) DE LA BECHE, HENRY THOMAS (1796-1855), one of the band of enthusiastic workers by whom the science of geology was developed so rapidly in England during the early part of this century, was born in the year 1796. His father, an officer in the army, possessed landed property in Jamaica, but died while his son was still young. The boy accordingly spent his youth with his mother among the interesting and picturesque coast cliffs of the south-west of England, where probably he early imbibed that love for geological pursuits, and cultivated that marked artistic faculty, to which in large measure be owed the high position he ultimately reached. When fourteen years of age, being destined, like his friend Murchison, for the military profession, he entered the college at Great Marlowe, where he specially distinguished himself by the rapidity and skill with which he executed sketches showing the salient features of a district. But this aptitude, which would have been of great service in a soldier's life, was not called forth for warlike purposes. The peace of 1815 changed the career of many young aspirants for military distinction, and among them De la Beche. Instead of pursuing the calling he had chosen, he began to devote himself with everincreasing assiduity to the pursuit of geology. When only twenty-one years of age he joined the Geological Society of London, continuing throughout life to be one of its most active, useful, and honoured members. Possessing a fortune sufficient for the gratification of his tastes, he visited many localities of geological interest in Britain, and spent some time on the Continent studying features in the geology and physical geography of France and Switzerland. His journeys seldom failed to bear fruit in suggestive notes,, papers, or sketches. Early attachment to the south-west of England led him back to that region, where, with augmented power from enlarged experience and reflection, he began the detailed investigation of the rocks of Cornwall and Devon. Thrown much into contact with the mining community of that part of the country, he conceived the idea that the nation ought to compile a geological map of the United Kingdom, and collect and preserve specimens to illustrate, and perhaps even to aid in further developing, its mineral industries. He showed his skilful management of affairs by inducing the Government of the day to recognize his work and give him an appointment in connection with the Ordnance Survey.. This formed the starting-point of the present Geological Survey of Great Britain and Ireland. Year by year increasing stores of valuable specimens were transmitted to London; for De la Beche enlisted the sympathy and co-operation of the mining authorities of Cornwall and Devon. At last the building where the young Museum of Economic Geology was placed became too small But De la Beche, having seen how fruitful his first idea had become, determined to use all his persuasion to prevail on the authorities not merely to provide a large structure, but to widen the whole scope of the scientific establishment of which he was the head, so as to impart to it the character of a great educational institution where practical as well as theoretical instruction should be given in every branch of science necessary for the conduct of mining work. In this endeavour he was again successful. Parliament sanctioned the erection of a museum in Jermyn Street, London, and the organization of a staff of professors with laboratories and other appliances. The establishment was opened in 1851. The Geological Survey also, which had grown up under his care, no longer under the Ordnance Department, received a new organization and an increase to its staff. To De la Beche belongs the high praise of having entirely originated and developed this important branch of the public service. Many foreign countries have since formed geological surveys avowedly based upon the organization and experience of that of the United Kingdom. The British colonies, also, have in many instances established similar surveys for the development of their mineral resources, and have had recourse to the parent survey for advice and for officers to conduct the operations. De la Beche was an able mineralogist as well as an admirable field-geologist. He published numerous memoirs on English geology in the Transactions of the Geological Society of London, as well as in the Memoirs of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom. He likewise wrote a valuable text-book of geology, and a work of singular breadth and clearness-Researches in Theoretical Geology-in which he enunciated a philosophical treatment of geological questions much in advance of his time. An early volume. How to Observe in Geology, was rewritten and enlarged by him late in life, and published under the title of The Geological Observer. It was marked by wide practical experience, multifarious knowledge, philosophical insight, and a genius for artistic delineation of geological phenomena. He received from many foreign societies recognition of his services to science, and at the close of his life was awarded the Wollaston medal-the highest honour in the gift of the Geological Society of London. After a life of constant activity he began to suffer from partial paralysis, but, though becoming gradually worse, continued able to transact his official business until a few days before his death, which took place on 13th April 1855. DELACROIX, FERDINAND VICTOR EUGENE, (17981863), a French painter of history, was born at CharentonSt-Maurice, near Paris, 26th April 1798. His father was a partisan of the most violent faction during the time of the Revolution. The family affairs seem to have been conducted in the wildest manner, and the accidents that befell the child, well authenticated as they are said to be, make it almost a miracle that he survived. He was first nearly burned to death in the cradle by a nurse falling asleep over a novel, and the candle dropping on the coverlet; this left permanent marks on his arms and face. He was next dropped into the sea by another bonne, who was climbing up a ship's side to see her lover. He was nearly poisoned, and nearly choked, and, to crown all, he tried to hang himself, without any thought of suicide, in imitation of a print exhibiting a man in that position of final ignominy. The prediction of a charlatan founded on his horoscope has been preserved:-"Cet enfant deviendra un homme célèbre, mais sa vie sera des plus laborieuses, des plus tourmentées, et toujours livrée à la contradiction." Delacroix the elder died at Bordeaux when Eugene was seven years of age, and his mother returned to Paris and placed him in the Lycée Napoléon. Afterwards, on his determining to be a painter, he entered the atelier of Baron Guérin, who affected to treat him as an amateur. His fellow-pupil was Scheffer, who was alike by temperament and antecedents the opposite of the bizarre Delacroix, and the two remained antagonistic to the end of life. Delacroix's acknowledged power and yet want of success with artists and critics-Thiers being his only advocate-perhaps mainly resulted from his bravura and rude dash in the use of the brush, at a time when smooth roundness of surface was general. His first important picture, Dante and Virgil, was painted in his own studio; and when Guérin went to see it he flew into a passion, and told him his picture was absurd, detestable, exaggerated. "Why ask me to come and see this? you knew what I must say." Yet his work was received at the Salon, and produced an enthusiasm of debate (1822). Some said Géricault had worked on it, but all treated it with respect. Still in private his position, even after the larger tragic picture, the Massacre of Scipio, had been deposited in the Luxembourg by the Government, became that of an Ishmaelite The war for the freedom of Greece then going on moved him deeply, and his next two pictures-Marino Faliero Decapitated on the Giant's Staircase of the Ducal Palace (which has always remained a European success), and Greece Lamenting on the Ruins of Missolonghi-with many smaller works, were exhibited for the benefit of the patriots in 1826. This exhibition was much visited by the public, and next year he produced another of his important works, Sardanapalus, from Byron's drama. After this, he says, "I became the abomination of painting, I was refused water and salt,"-but. he adds with singularly happy naïveté, "J'étais enchanté de moimême ! The patrimony he inherited, or. perhaps it should be said, what remained of it, was 10,000 livres de rente, and with economy he lived on this, and continued the expensive process of painting large historical pictures. In 1831 he reappeared in the Salon with six works, and immediately after left for Morocco, where |