Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 6.djvu/839

Rh hands of the Greeks. There does not, however, seern to be any necessity for supposing that any personal considerations of such a kind were needed to impel him to a policy which was doubtless animated by far larger and wider views. The old doge made a hard bargain with the emissaries of the crusaders for the use of the galleys of the republic ; and when, at the moment of departure, it turned out, as he had expected, that they had not money enough to pay the stipulated price, he insisted that, in lieu of it, the expedition should first reduce Zara. Dandolo himself, on this being with some difficulty agreed to, took the cross and assumed the command of the fleet. Zara was besieged, taken, pillaged, and restored to the domain of the republic. The expedition then proceeded to the greater enterprize of attacking Constantinople, in which, led by Dandolo, it was equally successful. But it was not till the young Emperor Alexis had been murdered in a revolt of the Greeks of Constantinople that Dandolo opened to the crusading expedition a proposal that they should seize on the city and on the Greek empire. The counsel was accepted, with a success due in a great measure to the conduct and valour of the blind octogenarian doge. Constantinople was pillaged, and booty to an incredible amount was divided among the Venetians and the French. Dandolo might have been crowned emperor instead of Baldwin of Flanders. Whether he declined in accordance with his own judgment, or whether Venice would not permit a citizen of hers to become an emperor, is uncertain. At all events the old doge showed himself once again as good at a bargain as at a fight. He obtained for Venice a very full share of the plunder, both of dominions and of movable property, as well as of useful privileges exacted, with a shrewd and far-seeing eye, to future advantages. Among the booty secured for Venice were the celebrated four horses, now once more, after their journey to Paris, on the west front of the church of St Mark. Enrico Dandolo, first doge of the name, died in 1205, one year after the establishment of the Latin empire at Constantinople. (See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch.60). The eldest son of this Enrico, Fantino, was patriarch of Constantinople ; and the second, Eainieri, was procuratore di St Marco. He was killed in Candia in. Giberto, known in Venetian history as successful in naval warfare against the Genoese in, was the son of Rainieri, and his son Giovanni, elected doge in, ruled the republic till, and was the father of that Andrea Dandolo of whom it is related, that having been unsuccessful in a naval fight against the Genoese, and being prisoner on board one of the enemy's galleys, he knocked his brains out by beating his head against the mast. The Dandolo family gave two other doges to the republic. Francisco was elected in, and died in, and is known in history as Dandolo “Cane,” “Dog Dandolo,” not from having humiliated himself before Clement V., when imploring the pontiff to become reconciled to Venice, as Sismondi writes in the Biographic Universelle, but from “Cane” having been an old family name. Andrea Dandolo was elected doge in at the exceptionally youthful age of thirty-six, and ruled the republic till. This Andrea was a student and a man of letters, and an intimate friend of Petrarch, some of whose letters to him are extant. He wrote two chronicles of Venice, one of which was published in the 12th volume of the Rerum Italicarum Scriptores of Muratori, while the other is extant in MS. He is said to have died of a broken heart, caused by the successes of Paganino Doria and the Genoese fleet in the Adriatic.  DANDOLO,, (1758-1819), an Italian scientist, was born at Venice in 1758, of good family, though not of the same house as the doges above noticed, and commenced life as a physician in his native city. He was a prominent opponent of the oligarchical party in the revolution which took place on the approach of Napoleon ; and he was one of the envoys sent to seek the protection of the French. When the request was refused, and Venice was placed under Austria, he removed to Milan, where he was made member of the great council. In 1799, on the invasion of the Russians and the overthrow of the Cisalpine republic, Dandolo retired to Paris, where, in the same year, he published his treatise Les Hommes nouveaux, ou moyen -d operer une regeneration nouvelle. But he soon after returned to the neighbourhood of Milan, to devote himself to scientific agriculture. In 1805 Napoleon made him governor of Dalmatia, with the title of provediteur general, in which position Dandolo distinguished himself by his efforts to remove the wretchedness and idleness of the people, and to improve the country by draining the pestilential marshes and introducing better methods of agriculture. When, in 1809, Dalmatia was re-annexed to the Illyrian provinces, Dandolo returned to Venice, having received as his reward from the French emperor the title of count and several other distinctions. He died in his native city on the 13th December 1819.

1em  DANIEL, according to the, was a Jew carried captive in the reign of Jehoiakim to Babylon, where, by his preternatural wisdom, and as the reward of his fidelity to his religion, he attained the highest rank in the state, and the presidency of the wise men of Babylon.  DANIEL,. The controversy as to the origin and significance of this book has passed through so many phases, and the collateral arguments are so apt to obscure those on which the question really hinges, that a simpler mode of treatment than is customary in theological worka seems to be here desirable. Instead of beginning with the second part of Daniel (vii.-xii.), which professes to contain circumstantial predictions, and is consequently difficult to treat without some reference to &quot; burning questions &quot; of theology, we shall first survey the narrative-portion (i.-vi.) from an historical point of view, and inquire how far the names, ideas, customs, and historical allusions in it agree with the facts known to us from other sources. Our chief guide will be a critical study of the cuneiform inscriptions.

(1.) As to the names. The writer of Daniel evidently supposes that Belteshazzar is compounded with the name of Bel, or Merodach, the favourite god of Nebuchadnezzar (see iv. 8). It appears, however, that the word has no connection with Bel, and it is most probably a corruption of Balatsu-usur, &quot; his life protect.&quot; Ashpenaz, Shadrach, and Meshach are quite out of keeping with Babylonian scenery ; they cannot be explained at all. Arioch, on the other hand, may be from the primitive Accadian name Eri- aku (Lenormant), though the revival of such a name is rather surprizing. Hamelsar (i. 11) may perhaps be a corrupt form of a Babylonian name, as Abcd-nego (from Abed-nebo) certainly is. The form Nebuchadnezzar, for Nebuchadrezzar, is not peculiar to Daniel, and can hardly be used in argument. (2.) Traces of Babylonian ideas have been most industriously sought for by Mr Fuller, but they are too uncertain to be of any appreciable value. Who can believe that that fine appellation, &quot; the Ancient of days (vii. 22), is derived from the eternally self-begotten Hea (the 