VOLUME VIII SLICE V Dinard to Dodsworth (continued 3)

All the evidence now available goes to prove that the establishment of permanent diplomatic agencies was not an unconscious and accidental development of previous conditions, but deliberately adopted as an obvious convenience. But, while all the powers were agreed as to the convenience of maintaining such agencies abroad, all were equally agreed in viewing the representatives accredited to them by foreign states with extreme suspicion. This attitude was abundantly justified by the peculiar ethics of the new diplomacy. The old “orators” of the Summer-shall-be-green type could not long hold their own against the new men who had studied in the school of Italian statecraft, for whom the end justified the means. Machiavelli had gathered in The Prince and The Discourses on Livy the principles which underlay the practice of his day in Italy; Francis I., the first monarch to establish a completely organized diplomatic machinery, did most to give these principles a European extension. By the close of the 16th century diplomacy had become frankly “Machiavellian,” and the ordinary rules of morality were held not to apply to the intercourse between nations. This was admitted in theory as well as in practice. Germonius, after a vigorous denunciation of lying in general, argues that it is permissible for the safety or convenience (commodo) of princes, since salus populi suprema lex, and quod non permittit naturalis ratio, admittit civilis; and he adduces in support of this principle the answer given by Ulysses to Neoptolemus, in the Ajax of Sophocles, and the examples of Abraham, Jacob and David. Paschalius, while affirming that an ambassador must study to speak the truth, adds that he is not such a “rustic boor” as to say that an “official lie” (officiosum mendacium) is never to be employed, or to deny that an ambassador should be, on occasion, splendide mendax.12 The situation is summed up in the famous definition of Sir Henry Wotton, which, though excused by himself as a jest, was held to be an indiscreet revelation of the truth: “An ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.”13 The most successful liar, in fact, was esteemed the most successful diplomatist. “A prime article of the catechism of ambassadors,” says Bayle in his Dictionnaire critique (1699), “whatever their religion, is to invent falsehoods and to go about making society believe them.” So universally was this principle adopted that, in the end, no diplomatist even expected to be believed; and the best way to deceive was—as Bismarck cynically avowed—to tell the truth.

But, in addition to being a liar ex officio, the ambassador was also “an honourable spy.” “The principal functions of an envoy,” says Francois de Callières, himself an ex-ambassador of Louis XIV., “are two; the first is to look after the affairs of his own prince; the second is to discover the affairs of the other.” A clever minister, he maintains, will know how to keep himself informed of all that goes on in the mind of the sovereign, in the councils of ministers or in the country; and for this end “good cheer and the warming effect of wine” are excellent allies.14 This being so, it is hardly to be wondered at that foreign ambassadors were commonly regarded as perhaps necessary, but certainly very unwelcome, guests. The views of Philippe de Commines have already been quoted above, and they were shared by a long series of theoretical writers as well as by men of affairs. Gentilis is all but alone in his protest against the view that all ambassadors were exploratores magis quam oratores, and to be treated as such. So early as 1481 the government of Venice had decreed the penalty of banishment and a heavy fine for any one who should talk of affairs of state with a foreign envoy, and though the more civilized princes did not follow the example of the sultan, who by way of precaution locked the ambassador of Ferdinand II., Jerome Laski, into “a dark and stinking place without windows,” they took the most minute precautions to prevent the ambassadors of friendly powers from penetrating into their secrets. Charles V. thought it safest to keep them as far away as possible from his court. So did Francis I.; and, when affairs were critical, he made his frequent changes of residence and his hunting expeditions the excuse for escaping from their presence. Henry VII. forbade his subjects to hold any intercourse with them, and, later on, set spies upon them and examined their correspondence—a practice by no means confined to England. If the system of permanent embassies survived, it is clear that this was mainly due to the belief of the sovereigns that they gained more by maintaining “honourable spies” at foreign courts than they lost by the presence of those of foreign courts at their own. It was purely a question of the balance of advantage. Neither among statesmen nor among theorists was there any premonition of the great part to be played by the permanent diplomatic body in the development and maintenance of the concert of Europe. To Paschalius the permanent embassies were “a miserable outgrowth of a miserable age.”15 Grotius himself condemned them as not only harmful, but useless, the proof of the latter being that they were unknown to antiquity.16

Development of the Diplomatic Hierarchy.—The history of the diplomatic body17 is, like that of other bodies, that of the progressive differentiation of functions. The middle ages knew no classification of diplomatic agents; the person sent on mission is described indifferently as legatus, orator, nuntius, ablegatus, commissarius, procurator, mandatarius, agens or ambaxator (ambassator, &c.). In Gundissalvus, De legato (1485), the oldest printed work on the subject, the word ambasiator, first found in a Venetian decree of 1268, is applied to any diplomat. Florence was the first to make distinction; the orator was appointed by the council of the republic; the mandatorio, with inferior powers, by the Council of Ten. In 1500 Machiavelli, who held only the latter rank, wrote from France urging the Signoria to send ambasiadori. This was, however, rather a question of powers than of dignity. But the causes which ultimately led to the elaborate differentiation of diplomatic ranks were rather questions of dignity than of functions.18 The breakdown of feudalism, with the consequent rise of a series of sovereign states or of states claiming to be sovereign, of very various size and importance, led to a certain confusion in the ceremonial relation between them, which had been unknown to the comparatively clearly defined system of the middle ages. The smaller states were eager to assert the dignity of their actual or practical independence; the greater powers were equally bent on “keeping them in their place.” If the emperor, as has been stated above, was too exalted to send ambassadors, certain of the lesser states were soon esteemed too humble to be represented at the courts of the great powers save by agents of an inferior rank. By the second half of the 16th century, then, there are two classes of diplomatists, ambassadors and residents or agents, the latter being accounted ambassadors of the second class.19 At first the difference of rank was determined by the status of the sovereign by whom or to whom the diplomatic agent was accredited; but early in the 16th century it became fairly common for powers of the first rank to send agents of the second class to represent them at courts of an equal status. The reasons were various, and not unamusing. First and foremost came the question of expense. The ambassador, as representing the person of his sovereign, was bound by the sentiment of the age to display an exaggerated magnificence. His journeys were like royal progresses, his state entries surrounded with every circumstance of pomp, and it was held to be his duty to advertise the munificence of his prince by boundless largesses. Had this munificence been as unlimited in fact as in theory, all might have been well, but, in that age of vaulting ambitions, depleted exchequers were the rule rather than the exception in Europe; the records are full of pitiful appeals from ambassadors for arrears of pay, and appointment to an embassy often meant ruin, even to a man of substance. To give but one example, Sir Richard Morison, Edward VI.’s ambassador in Germany, had to borrow money to pay his debts before he could leave Augsburg (Cal. State Pap. Edw. VI., No. 467), and later on he writes from Hamburg (April 9, 1552) that he could buy nothing, because everyone believed that he had packed up in readiness to flit secretly, for “How must they buy things, where men know their stuff is ready trussed up, and they fleeting every day?” (ib. No. 544). But the dignity of ambassador carried another drawback besides expense; his function of “honourable spy” was seriously hampered by the trammels of his position. He was unable to move freely in society, but lived a ceremonial existence in the midst of a crowd of retainers, through whom alone it was proper for him to communicate with the world outside. It followed that, though the office of ambassador was more dignified, that of agent was more generally useful.

Yet a third cause, possibly the most immediately potent, encouraged the growth of the lesser diplomatic ranks: the question of precedence among powers theoretically equal. Modern diplomacy has settled a difficulty which caused at one time much heart-burning and even bloodshed by a simple appeal to the alphabet. Great Britain feels no humiliation in signing after France, if the reason be that her name begins with G; had she not been Great, she would sign before. The vexed question of the precedence of ambassadors, too, has been settled by the rule, already referred to above, as to seniority of appointment. But while the question remained unsettled it was obviously best to evade it; and this was most easily done by sending an agent of inferior rank to a court where the precedence claimed for an ambassador would have been refused.

Thus set in motion, the process of differentiation continues until the system is stereotyped in the 19th century. It is unnecessary to trace this evolution here in any detail. It is mainly a question of names, and diplomatic titles are no exception to the general rule by which all titles tend to become cheapened and therefore, from time to time, need to be reinforced by fresh verbal devices. The method was the familiar one of applying terms that had once implied a particular quality in a fashion that implied actually nothing. The ambassador extraordinary had originally been one sent on an extraordinary mission; for the time and purpose of this mission his authority superseded that of the resident ambassador. But by the middle of the 17th century the custom had grown up of calling all ambassadors “extraordinary,” in order to place them on an equality with the others. The same process was extended to diplomatists of the second rank; and envoys (envoyé for ablegatus) were always “extraordinary,” and as such claimed and received precedence over mere “residents,” who in their day had asserted the same claim against the agents—all three terms having at one time been synonymous. Similarly a “minister plenipotentiary” had originally meant an agent armed with full powers (plein-pouvoir); but, by a like process, the combination came to mean as little as “envoy extraordinary”—though a plenipotentiary tout simple is still an agent, of no ceremonially defined dignity, despatched with full powers to treat and conclude. Finally, the evolution of the title of a diplomatist of the second rank is crowned by the high-sounding combination, now almost exclusively used, of “envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary.” The ultimate fate of the simple title “resident” was the same as that of “agent.” Both had been freely sold by needy sovereigns to all and sundry who were prepared to pay for what gave them a certain social status. The “agent” fell thus into utter discredit, and those “residents” who were still actual diplomatic agents became “ministers resident” to distinguish them from the common herd.

The classification of diplomatic agents was for the first time definitively included in the general body of international law by the Règlement of the 19th of March 1815 at Vienna20; and the whole question was finally settled at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (November 21, 1818) when, the proposal to establish precedence by the status of the accrediting powers having wisely been rejected, diplomatic agents were divided into four classes: (1) Ambassadors, legates, nuncios; (2) Envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, and other ministers accredited direct to the sovereign; (3) Ministers resident; (4) Chargés d’affaires. With a few exceptions (e.g. Turkey), this settlement was accepted by all states, including the United States of America.

Rights and Privileges of Diplomatic Agents.—These are partly founded upon immemorial custom, partly the result of negotiations embodied in international law. The most important, as it is the most ancient, is the right of personal inviolability extended to the diplomatic agent and the members of his suite. This inviolability is maintained after a rupture between the two governments concerned, and even after the outbreak of war. The habit of the Ottoman government of imprisoning in the Seven Towers the ambassador of a power with which it quarrelled was but an exception which proved the rule. The second important right is that of exterritoriality (q.v.), a convenient fiction by which the house and equipages of the diplomatic agent are regarded as the territory of the power by whom he is accredited. This involves the further principle that the agent is in no way subject to the receiving government. He is exempt from taxation and from the payment at least of certain local rates. He also enjoys immunity (1) from civil jurisdiction, e.g. he cannot be sued, nor can his goods be seized, for debt; (2) from criminal jurisdiction, e.g. he cannot be arrested and tried for a criminal offence. For a crime of violence, however, or for plotting against the state, he can be placed under the necessary restraint and expelled the country.21 These immunities extend to all the members of an envoy’s suite. The difficulties that might be supposed to arise from such exemptions have not in practice been found very serious; for though, in the case of crimes committed by servants of agents of the first or second class the procedure is not clearly defined, each case would easily be made the subject of arrangement. In certain cases, e.g. embassies in Turkey, the exterritoriality of ambassadors implies a fairly extensive criminal jurisdiction; in other cases the dismissal of the servant would deprive him of his diplomatic immunity and bring him under the law of the land. The right of granting asylum claimed by diplomatic agents in virtue of that of exterritoriality, at one time much abused, is now strictly limited. A political or criminal offender may seek asylum in a foreign embassy; but if, after a request has been formally made for his surrender, the ambassador refuses to deliver him up, the authorities may take the measures necessary to effect his arrest, and even force an entrance into the embassy for the purpose. The “right of chapel” (droit de chapelle, or droit de culte), enjoyed by envoys in reference to their exterritoriality, i.e. the right of free exercise of religious worship within their house, formerly of great importance, has been rendered superfluous by the spread of religious toleration. (See L. Oppenheim, Internat. Law (London, 1905) ,i. p. 441, &c.; A.W. Haffter, Das europäische Völkerrecht (Berlin, 1888), p. 435, &c.)

The Personnel of the “Corps diplomatique.”—The establishment of diplomacy as a regular branch of the civil service is of modern growth, and even now by no means universal. From old time states naturally chose as their agents those who would best serve their interests in the matter in hand. In the middle ages diplomacy was practically a monopoly of the clergy, who as a class alone possessed the necessary qualifications: and in later times, when learning had spread to the laity as well, there were still potent reasons why the clergy should continue to be employed as diplomatic agents. Of these reasons the most practical was that of expense; for the wealth of the church formed an inexhaustible reserve which was used without scruple for secular purposes. Francis I. of France, who by the Concordat with Rome had in his hands the patronage of all the sees and abbeys in France, used this partly to reward his clerical ministers, partly as a great secret service fund for bribing the ambassadors of other powers, partly for the payment of those high-placed spies at foreign courts maintained by the elaborately organized system known as the Secret du Roi.22 None the less, in the 16th century, laymen as diplomats are already well in evidence. They are usually lawyers, rarely soldiers, occasionally even simple merchants. Not uncommonly they were foreigners, like the Italian Thomas Spinelly mentioned above, drawn from that cosmopolitan class of diplomats who were ready to serve any master. Though nobles were often employed as ambassadors by all the powers, Venice alone made nobility a condition of diplomatic service. They were professional in the sense that, for the most part, diplomacy was the main occupation of their lives; there was, however, no graded diplomatic service in which, as at present, it was possible to rise on a fixed system from the position of simple attaché to that of minister and ambassador. The “attaché to the embassy” existed23; but he was not, as is now the case, a young diplomat learning his profession, but an experienced man of affairs, often a foreigner employed by the ambassador as adviser, secret service agent and general go-between, and he was without diplomatic status.24 The 18th century saw the rise of the diplomatic service in the modern sense. The elaboration of court ceremonial, for which Versailles had set the fashion, made it desirable that diplomatic agents should be courtiers, and young men of rank about the court began to be attached to missions for the express purpose of teaching them the art of diplomacy. Thus arose that aristocratic diplomatic class, distinguished by the exquisite refinement of its manners, which survived from the 18th century into the 19th. Modern democracy has tended to break with this tradition, but it still widely prevails. Even in Great Britain, where the rest of the public services have been thrown open to all classes, a certain social position is still demanded for candidates for the diplomatic service and the foreign office, and in addition to passing a competitive examination, they must be nominated by someone of recognized station prepared to vouch for their social qualifications. In America, where no regular diplomatic service exists, all diplomatic agents are nominated by the president.

The existence of an official diplomatic service, however, by no means excludes the appointment of outsiders to diplomatic posts. It is, in fact, one of the main grievances of the regular diplomatic body that the great rewards of their profession, the embassies, are so often assigned to politicians or others who have not passed through the drudgery of the service. But though this practice has, doubtless, sometimes been abused, it is impossible to criticize the wisdom of its occasional application.

A word may be added as to the part played by women in diplomacy. So far as their unofficial influence upon it is concerned, it would be impossible to exaggerate its importance; it would suffice to mention three names taken at random from the annals of the 19th century, Madame de Staël, Baroness von Krüdener, and Princess Lieven. Gentz comments on the “feminine intrigues” that darkened the counsels of the congresses of Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle, and from which the powers so happily escaped in the bachelor seclusion of Troppau. Nor is it to be supposed that statesmen will ever renounce a diplomatic weapon so easy of disguise and so potent for use. A brilliant salon presided over by a woman of charm may be a most valuable centre of a political propaganda; and ladies are still widely employed in the secret diplomacy of the powers. Their employment as regularly accredited diplomatic agents, however, though not unknown, has been extremely rare. An interesting instance is the appointment of Catherine of Aragon, when princess of Wales, as representative of her father, Ferdinand the Catholic, at the court of Henry VII. (G. A. Bergenroth, Calendar of State Papers ... England and Spain—in the Archives at Simancas, &c., i. pp. xxxiii, cxix).

Literature.—Besides general works on international law (q.v.) which necessarily deal with the subject of diplomacy, a vast mass of treatises on diplomatic agents exists. The earliest printed work is the Tractatus de legato (Rome, 1485) of Gundissalvus (Gonsalvo de Villadiego), professor of law at Salamanca, auditor for Spain at the Roman court of the Rota, and bishop of Oviedo; but the first really systematic writer on the subject was Albericus Gentilis, De legationibus libri iii. (London, 1583, 1585, Hanover, 1596, 1607, 1612). For a full bibliography of works on ambassadors see Baron Diedrich H. L. von Ompteda, Litteratur des gesammten sowohl natürlichen als positiven Völkerrechts (Regensburg, 1785), p. 534, &c., which was completed and continued by the Prussian minister Karl Albert von Kamptz, in Neue Literatur des Völkerrechts seit dem Jahre 1784 (Berlin, 1817), p. 231. A list of writers, with critical and biographical remarks, is also given in Ernest Nys’s “Les Commencements de la diplomatie et le droit d’ambassade jusqu’à Grotius,” in the Revue de droit international, vol. xvi. p. 167. Other useful modern works on the history of diplomacy are: E. C. Grenville-Murray, Embassies and Foreign Courts, a History of Diplomacy (2nd ed., 1856); J. Zeller, La Diplomatie française vers le milieu du XVI^e siècle (Paris, 1881); A. O. Meyer, Die englische Diplomatie in Deutschland zur Zeit Eduards VI. und Mariens (Breslau, 1900); and, above all, Otto Krauske, Die Entwickelung der ständgien Diplomatie vom fünfzehnten Jahrhundert bis zu den Beschlüssen von 1815 und 1818, in Gustav Schmoller’s Staats- und socialwissenschaftliche Forschungen, vol. v. (Leipzig, 1885). To these may be added, as admirably illustrating in detail the early developments of modern diplomacy, Logan Pearsall Smith’s Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton (Oxford, 1907). Of works on modern diplomacy the most important are the Guide diplomatique of Baron Charles de Martens, new edition revised by F. H. Geffcken, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1866), and P. Pradier-Fodéré, Cours de droit diplomatique, 2 vols. (Paris, 1881).

(W. A. P.)

1 La Bruyère, Caractères, ii. 77 (ed. P. Jouast, Paris, 1881).

2 To Wellesley, in Stapleton’s Canning, i. 374.

3 For the motives of Metternich’s foreign policy see Austria-Hungary : History (iii. 332-333).

4 e.g. A History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe, by D. J. Hill (London and New York, 1905).

5 For this see Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, i. p. 498.

6 The Venetians, however, in their turn, doubtless learned their diplomacy originally from the Byzantines, with whom their trade expansion in the Levant early brought them into close contact. For Byzantine diplomacy see Roman Empire, Later : Diplomacy.

7 See Eugenio Albèri, Le Relazioni degli ambasciatori Veneti al senato, 15 vols. (Florence, 1839-1863).

8 The apocrisiarii (ἀποκρισιάριοι) or responsales should perhaps be mentioned, though they certainly did not set the precedent for the modern permanent missions. They were resident agents, practically legates, of the popes at the court of Constantinople. They were established by Pope Leo I., and continued until the Iconoclastic controversy broke the intimate ties between East and West. See Luxardo, Das vordekretalische Gesandtschaftsrecht der Päpste (Innsbruck, 1878); also Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, i. 501.

9 N. Bianchi, Le Materie politiche relative all’ estero degli archivi di stato piemontese (Bologna, Modena, 1875), p. 29.

10 Ib. Note 2, teneamus et deputemus ibidem continue mansurum.

11 The first ambassador of Venice to visit England was Zuanne da Lezze, who came in 1319 to demand compensation for the plundering of Venetian ships by English pirates.

12 Germonius, De legatis principum et populorum libri tres (Rome, 1627), chap. vi. p. 164; Paschalius, Legatus (Rouen, 1598), p. 302. Étienne Dolet, who had been secretary to Cardinal Jean du Bellay, and was burned for atheism in 1546, in his De officio legati (1541) advises ambassadors to surround themselves with taciturn servants, to employ vigilant spies, and to set afoot all manner of fictions, especially when negotiating with the court of Rome or with the Italian princes.

13 See Pearsall Smith, Sir Henry Wotton, pp. 49, 126 et seq.

14 François de Callières, De la manière de négocier avec les souverains (Brussels, 1716). See also A. Sorel, Recueil des instructions données aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France (Paris, 1884), e.g. vol. Autriche, pp. 77, 88, 102, 112.

15 “Nova res est, quod sciam, et infelicis hujus aetatis infelix partus.... Hinc oriri securitatem universorum, hinc stabiliri pacem gentium. Quae utinam tam vere dicerentur, quam speciose. Ego quidem, ne quid dissimulem, ab istis seorsum sentio. Nimirum, effoeta virtutis, foecunda fraudis haec saecula video peperisse spissata haec imperia, sive summas potestates, unde, ut e vomitariis, hae legationes undatim se fundunt.” Paschalius, Legatus (1598), p. 447. So too Félix de la Mothe Le Vayer (1547-1625), in his Legatus (Paris, 1579), says “Legatos tunc primum aut non multum post institutos fuisse cum Pandora malorum omnium semina in hunc mundum ... demisit.”

16 De jure belli et pacis (Amsterdam, 1621), ii. c. 18, § 3, n. 2.

17 The term corps diplomatique originated about the middle of the 18th century. “The Chancellor Furst,” says Ranke (xxx. 47, note), “does not use it as yet in his report (1754) but he knows it,” and it would appear that it had just been invented at Vienna. “Corps diplomatique, nom qu’une dame donna un jour à ce corps nombreux de ministres étrangers à Vienne.”

18 So too Pradier-Fodéré, vol. i. p. 262.

19 Thus Charles V. would not allow the representatives of the duke of Mantua, Ferrara, &c., to style themselves “ambassadors,” on the ground that this title could be borne only by the agents of kings and of the republic of Venice, and not by those of states whose sovereignty was impaired by any feudal relation to a superior power. (See Krauske p. 155.)

20 See Pradier-Fodéré, i. 265.

21 Gentilis, who had been consulted by the government in the case of the Spanish ambassador, Don Bernardino de Mendoza, expelled for intriguing against Queen Elizabeth, lays this down definitely. An ambassador, he says, need not be received, and he may be expelled. In actual practice a diplomatic agent who has made himself objectionable is withdrawn by his government on the representations of that to which he is accredited, and it is customary, before an ambassador is despatched, to find out whether he is a persona grata to the power to which he is accredited.

22 See Zeller.

23 A. O. Meyer, p. 22.

24 See the amusing account of the methods of these agents in Morysine to Cecil (January 23, 1551-1552), Cal. State Pap. Edw. VI., No. 530.

DIPLOMATIC, the science of diplomas, founded on the critical study of the “diplomatic” sources of history: diplomas, charters, acts, treaties, contracts, judicial records, rolls, chartularies, registers, &c. The employment of the word “diploma,” as a general term to designate an historical document, is of comparatively recent date. The Roman diploma, so called because it was formed of two sheets of metal which were shut together (Gr. διπλοῦν, to double) like the leaves of a book, was the passport or licence to travel by the public post; also, the certificate of discharge, conferring privileges of citizenship and marriage on soldiers who had served their time; and, later, any imperial grant of privileges. The word was adopted, rather pedantically, by the humanists of the Renaissance and applied by them to important deeds and to acts of sovereign authority, to privileges granted by kings and by great personages; and by degrees the term became extended and embraced generally the documents of the middle ages.

History of the Study.—The term “diplomatic,” the French diplomatique, is a modern adaptation of the Latin phrase res diplomatica employed in early works upon the subject, and more especially in the first great text-book, the De re diplomatica, issued in 1681 by the learned Benedictine, Dom Jean Mabillon, of the abbey of St Germain-des-Prés. Mabillon’s treatise was called forth by an earlier work of Daniel van Papenbroeck, the editor of the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists, who, with no great knowledge or experience of archives, undertook to criticize the historical value of ancient records and monastic documents, and raised wholesale suspicions as to their authenticity in his Propylaeum antiquarium circa veri ac falsi discrimen in vetustis membranis, which he printed in 1675. This was a rash challenge to the Benedictines, and especially to the congregation of St Maur, or confraternity of the Benedictine abbeys of France, whose combined efforts produced great literary works which still remain as monuments of profound learning. Mabillon was at that time engaged in collecting material for a great history of his order. He worked silently for six years before producing the work above referred to. His refutation of Papenbroeck’s criticisms was complete, and his rival himself accepted Mabillon’s system of the study of diplomatic as the true one. The De re diplomatica established the science on a secure basis; and it has been the foundation of all subsequent works on the subject, although the immediate result of its publication was a flood of controversial writings between the Jesuits and the Benedictines, which, however, did not affect its stability.

In Spain, the Benedictine Perez published, in 1688, a series of dissertations following the line of Mabillon’s work. In England, Madox’s Formulare Anglicanum, with a dissertation concerning ancient charters and instruments, appeared in 1702, and in 1705 Hickes followed with his Linguarum septentrionalium thesaurus, both accepting the principles laid down by the learned Benedictine. In Italy, Maffei appeared with his Istoria diplomatica in 1727, and Muratori, in 1740, introduced dissertations on diplomatic into his great work, the Antiquitates Italicae. In Germany, the first diplomatic work of importance was that by Bessel, entitled Chronicon Gotwicense and issued in 1732; and this was followed closely by similar works of Baring, Eckhard and Heumann.

France, however, had been the cradle of the science, and that country continued to be the home of its development. Mabillon had not taken cognizance of documents later than the 13th century. Arising out of a discussion relative to the origin of the abbey of St Victor en Caux and the authenticity of its archives, a more comprehensive work than Mabillon’s was compiled by the two Benedictines, Dom Toustain and Dom Tassin, viz. the Nouveau Traité de diplomatique, in six volumes, 1750-1765, which embraced more than diplomatic proper and extended to all branches of Latin palaeography. With great industry the compilers gathered together a mass of details; but their arrangement is faulty, and the text is broken up into such a multitude of divisions and subdivisions that it is tediously minute. However, its more extended scope has given the Nouveau Traité an advantage over Mabillon’s work, and modern compilations have drawn largely upon it.

As a result of the Revolution, the archives of the middle ages lost in France their juridical and legal value; but this rather tended to enhance their historical importance. The taste for historical literature revived. The Académie des Inscriptions fostered it. In 1821 the École des Chartes was founded; and, after a few years of incipient inactivity, it received a further impetus, in 1829, by the issue of a royal ordinance re-establishing it. Thenceforth it has been an active centre for the teaching and for the encouragement of the study of diplomatic throughout the country, and has produced results which other nations may envy. Next to France, Germany and Austria are distinguished as countries where activity has been displayed in the systematic study of diplomatic archives, more or less with the support of the state. In Italy, too, diplomatic science has not been neglected. In England, after a long period of regrettable indifference to the study of the national and municipal archives of the country, some effort has been made in recent years to remove the reproach. The publications of the Public Record Office and of the department of MSS. in the British Museum are more numerous and are issued more regularly than in former times; and an awakened interest is manifested by the foundation in the universities of a few lectureships in diplomatic and palaeography, and by the attention which those subjects receive in such an institution as the London School of Economics, and in the publications of private literary societies. But such efforts can never show the systematic results which are to be attained by a special institution of the character of the French École des Chartes.

Extent of the Science.—The field covered by the study of diplomatic is so extensive and the different kinds of documents which it takes into its purview are so numerous and various, that it is impossible to do more than give a few general indications of their nature. No nation can have advanced far on the path of civilization before discovering the necessity for documentary evidence both in public and in private life. The laws, the constitutions, the decrees of government, on the one hand, and private contracts between man and man, on the other, must be embodied in formal documents, in order to ensure permanent record. In the case of a nation advancing independently from a primitive to a later stage of civilization we should have to trace the origin of its documentary records and examine their development from a rudimentary condition. But in an inquiry into the history of the documents of the middle ages in Europe we do not begin with primitive forms. Those ages inherited the documentary system which had been created and developed by the Romans; and, imperfect and limited in number as are the earliest surviving charters and diplomas of European medieval history, they present themselves to us fully developed and cast in the mould and employing the methods and formulae of the earlier tradition. Based on this foundation the chanceries of the several countries of Europe, as they came into existence and were organized, reduced to method and rule on one general system the various documents which the exigencies of public and of private life from time to time called into existence, each individual chancery at the same time following its own line of practice in detail, and evolving and confirming particular formulas which have become characteristic of it.

Classification of Documents.—If we classify these documents under the two main heads of public and private deeds, we shall have to place in the former category the legislative, administrative, judicial, diplomatic documents emanating from public authority in public form: laws, constitutions, ordinances, privileges, grants and concessions, proclamations, decrees, judicial records, pleas, treaties; in a word, every kind of deed necessary for the orderly government of a civilized state. In early times many of these were comprised under the general term of “letters,” litterae, and to the large number of them which were issued in open form and addressed to the community the specific title of “letters patent,” litterae patentes, was given. In contradistinction those public documents which were issued in closed form under seal were known as “close letters,” litterae clausae.

Such public documents belong to the state archives of their several countries, and are the monuments of administrative and political and domestic history of a nation from one generation to another. In no country has so perfect a series been preserved as in our own. Into the Public Record Office in London have been brought together all the collections of state archives which were formerly stored in different official repositories of the kingdom. Beginning with the great survey of Domesday, long series of enrolments of state documents, in many instances extending from the times of the Angevin kings to our own day in almost unbroken sequence, besides thousands of separate deeds of all descriptions, are therein preserved (see Record).

Under the category of private documents must be included, not only the deeds of individuals, but also those of corporate bodies representing private interests and standing in the position of individual units in relation to the state, such as municipal bodies and monastic foundations. The largest class of documents of this character is composed of those numerous conveyances of real property and other title deeds of many descriptions and dating from early periods which are commonly described by the generic name of “charters,” and which are to be found in thousands, not only in such public repositories as the Public Record Office and the British Museum, but also in the archives of municipal and other corporate bodies throughout the country and in the muniment-rooms of old families. There are also the records of the manorial courts preserved in countless court-rolls and registers; also the scattered muniments of the dissolved monasteries represented by the many collections of charters and the valuable chartularies, or registers of charters, which have fortunately survived and exist both in public and in private keeping.

It will be noticed that in this enumeration of public and private documents in England reference is made to rolls. The practice of entering records on rolls has been in favour in England from a very early date subsequent to the Norman Conquest; and while in other countries the comprehensive term of “charters” (literally “papers”: Gr. χάρτης) is employed as a general description of documents of the middle ages, in England the fuller phrase “charters and rolls” is required. The master of the rolls, the Magister Rotulorum, is the official keeper of the public records.

From the great body of records, both public and private, many fall easily and naturally into the class in which the text takes a simpler narrative form; such as judicial records, laws, decrees, proclamations, registers, &c., which tell their own story in formulae and phraseology early developed and requiring little change. These we may leave on one side. For fuller description we select those deeds which, conferring grants and favours and privileges, conform more nearly to the idea of the Roman diploma and have received the special attention of the chanceries in the development and arrangement of their formulae and in their methods of execution.

All such medieval deeds are composed of certain recognized members or sections, some essential, others special and peculiar to the most elaborate and solemn documents. A deed of the more elaborate character is made up of two principal Structure of medieval diplomas. divisions: 1. the Text, in which is set out the object of the deed, the statement of the considerations and circumstances which have led to it, and the declaration of the will and intention of the person executing the deed, together with such protecting clauses as the particular circumstances of the case may require; 2. the Protocol (originally, the first sheet of a papyrus roll; Gr. πρῶτος, first, and κολλᾶν, to glue), consisting of the introductory and of the concluding formulae: superscription, address, salutation, &c., at the beginning, and date, formulae of execution, &c., at the end, of the deed. The latter portion of the protocol is sometimes styled the eschatocol (Gr. ἔσχατος, last, and κολλᾶν, to glue). While the text followed certain formulae which had become fixed by common usage, the protocol was always special and varied with the practices of the several chanceries, changing in a sovereign chancery with each successive reign.

The different sections of a full deed, taking them in order under the heads of Initial Protocol, Text and Final Protocol or Eschatocol, are as follows:—The initial protocol consists of the Invocation, the Superscription, the Address and the Salutation. 1. The The Invocation. Invocation, lending a character of sanctity to the proceedings, might be either verbal or symbolic. The verbal invocation consisted usually of some pious ejaculation, such as In nomine Dei, In nomine domini nostri Jesu Christi; from the 8th century, In nomine Sanctae et individuae Trinitatis; and later, In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. The symbolic form was usually the chrismon, or monogram composed of the Greek initials ΧΡ of the name of Christ. In the course of the 10th and 11th centuries this symbol came to be so scrawled that it had probably lost all meaning with the scribes. From the 9th century the letter C (initial of Christus) came gradually into use, and in German imperial diplomas it superseded the chrismon. Stenographic signs of the system known as Tironian notes were also sometimes added to this symbol down to the end of the 10th century, expressing such a phrase as Ante omnia Christus, or Christus, or Amen. From the Merovingian period, too, a cross was often used. The symbol gradually died out after the 12th century for general use, surviving only in notarial instruments The Superscription. and wills. 2. The Superscription (superscriptio, intitulatio) expressed the name and titles of the grantor or person issuing the deed. 3. The Address. As diplomas were originally in epistolary form the address was then a necessity. While in Merovingian deeds the old pattern was adhered The Address. to, in the Carolingian period the address was sometimes omitted. From the 8th century it was not considered necessary, and a distinction arose in the case of royal acts, those having the address being styled letters, and those omitting it, charters. The general form of address ran in phrase as Omnibus The Salutation. (or Universis) Christi fidelibus presentes litteras inspecturis. 4. The Salutation was expressed in such words as Salutem; Salutem et dilectionem; Salutem et apostolicam benedictionem, but it was not essential.

Then follows the text in five sections: the Preamble, the Notification, the Exposition, the Disposition and the Final Clauses. 5. The The Preamble. Preamble (prologus, arenga): an ornamental introduction generally composed of pious or moral sentiments, a prefatio ad captandam benevolentiam which facit ad ornamentum, degenerating into tiresome platitudes. It became stereotyped at an early age: in the 10th and 11th The Notification. centuries it was a most ornate performance; in the 12th century it was cut short; in the 13th century it died out. 6. The Notification (notificatio, promulgatio) was the publication of the purport of the deed introduced by The Exposition. The Disposition. The Final Clauses. such a phrase as notum sit, &c. 7. The Exposition set out the motives influencing the issue of the deed. 8. The Disposition described the object of the deed and the will and intention of the grantor. 9. The Final Clauses ensured the fulfilment of the terms of the deed; guarded against infringement, by comminatory anathemas and imprecations, not infrequently of a vehement description, or by penalties; guaranteed the validity of the deed; enumerated the formalities of subscription and execution; reserved rights, &c.

Next comes the final protocol or eschatocol comprising: the Date, the Appreciation, the Authentication. It was particularly in this portion of the deed that the varying practices of the several chanceries led to minute and intricate distinctions at The Date. different periods. 10. The Date. By the Roman law every act must be dated by the day and the year of execution. Yet in the middle ages, from the 9th to the 12th century, a large proportion of deeds bears no date. In the most ancient charters the date clause was frequently separated from the body of the deed and placed in an isolated position at the foot of the sheet. From the 12th century it commonly followed the text immediately. Certain classes of documents, such as decrees of councils, notarial deeds, &c., began with the date. The usual formula was data, datum, actum, factum, scriptum. In the Carolingian period a distinction grew up between datum and actum, the former applying to the time, the latter to the place, of date. In the papal chancery from an early period down to the 12th century the use of a double date prevailed, the first following the text and being inserted by the scribe when the deed was written (scriptum), the second being added at the foot of the deed on its execution (actum), by the chancellor or other high functionary. From the Roman custom of dating by the consular year arose the medieval practice of dating by the regnal year of emperor, king or pope. Special dates were sometimes employed, such as the year of some great historical event, battle, siege, pestilence, &c. 11. The Appreciation. The feliciter of the The Appreciation. Romans became the medieval feliciter in Domino, or In Dei nomine feliciter, or the more simple Deo gratias or the still more simple Amen, for the auspicious closing of a deed. In Merovingian and Carolingian diplomas it follows the date; in other cases it closes the text. In the greater papal bulls it appears in the form of a triple Amen. Benevalete was also employed as the appreciation in early deeds; but in Merovingian diplomas and in papal bulls this valedictory salutation becomes a mark of authentication, as will be noticed below. 12. The Authentication was a The Authentication. solemn proceeding which was discharged by more than one act. The most important was the subscription or subscriptions of the person or persons from whom the deed emanated. The laws of the late Roman empire required the subscriptions and the impressions of the signet seals of the parties and of the witnesses to the deed. The subscription (subscriptio) comprised the name, signature and description of the person signing. The impression of the signet (not the signature) was the signum, sometimes signaculum, rarely sigillum. The practice of subscribing with the autograph signature obtained in the early middle ages, as appears from early documents such as those of Ravenna. But from the 7th century it began to decline, and by the 12th century it had practically ceased. In Roman deeds an illiterate person affixed his mark, or signum manuale, which was attested. The cross being an easy form for a mark, it was very commonly used and naturally became connected with the Christian symbol. Hence, in course of time, it came to be attached very generally to subscriptions, autograph or otherwise. Great personages who were illiterate required something more elaborate than a common mark. Hence arose the use of the monogram, the caracter nominis, composed of the letters of the name. The emperor Justin, who could not write, made use of a monogram, as did also Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths. Those Merovingian kings, likewise, who were illiterate, had their individual monograms; and at length Charlemagne adopted the monogram as his regular form of signature. From his reign down to that of Philip the Fair the monogram was the recognized sign manual of the sovereigns of France (see Autographs). It was employed by the German emperors down to the reign of Maximilian I. The royal use of the monogram was naturally imitated by great officers and ecclesiastics. But another form of sign manual also arose out of the subscription. The closing word (usually subscripsi), written or abbreviated as sub., or ss. or s., was often finished off with flourishes and interlacings, sometimes accompanied with Tironian notes, the whole taking the shape of a domed structure to which the French have given the name of ruche or bee-hive. Thus in the early middle ages we have deeds authenticated by the subscription, usually autograph, giving the name and titles of the person executing, and stating the part taken by him in the deed, and closing with the subscripsi, often in shape of the ruche and constituting the signum manuale. If not autograph, the subscription might be impersonal in such form as signum (or signum manus) + N. In the Carolingian period, while phrases were constantly used in the body of the deed implying that it was executed by autograph subscription, it did not necessarily follow that such subscription was actually written in person. The ruche was also adopted by chancellors, notaries and scribes as their official mark. While autograph subscriptions continued to be employed, chiefly by ecclesiastics, down to the beginning of the 12th century, the monogram was perpetuated from the 10th century by the notaries. Their marks, simple at first, became so elaborate from the end of the 13th century that they found it necessary to add their names in ordinary writing, or also to employ a less complicated design. This was the commencement of the modern practice of writing the signature which first came into vogue in the 14th century.

To lend further weight and authority to the subscription, certain symbols and forms were added at different periods. Imitating, the corroborative Legi of the Byzantine quaestor and the Legimus of the Eastern emperors, the Frankish chancery in the West made use of the same form, notably in the reign of Charles the Bald, in some of whose diplomas the Legimus appears written in larger letters in red. The valedictory Benevalete, employed in early deeds as a form of The Benevalete. appreciation (see above), appears in Merovingian and in early Carolingian royal diplomas, and also in papal bulls, as an authenticating addition to the subscription. In the diplomas it was written in cursive letters in two lines, Bene valete, just to the right of the incision cut in the sheet to hold fast the seal, which sometimes even covered part of the word. In the most ancient papal bulls it was written by the pope himself at the foot of the deed. in two lines, generally in larger capital or uncial characters, placed between two crosses. From the beginning of the 11th century it became the fashion to link the letters; and, dating from the time of Leo IX., a.d. 1048-1054, the Benevalete was inscribed in form of a monogram. During Leo’s pontificate it was also accompanied with a flourish called the Komma, which was only an exaggeration of the mark of punctuation (periodus) which from the 9th to the 11th century closed the subscription and generally resembled the modern semicolon. Leo’s successors abandoned the Komma, but the monogrammatic Benevalete continued, invariable in form, but from time to time varying in size. In Leo IX.’s pontificate also was introduced the Rota. This sign, when it had received its final shape in the The Rota. 11th century, was in form of a wheel, composed of two concentric circles, in the space between which was written the motto or device of the pope (signum papae), usually a short sentence from one of the Psalms or some other portion of Scripture; preceded by a small cross, which the pontiff himself sometimes inscribed. The central space within the wheel was divided (by cross lines) into four quarters, the two upper ones being occupied by the names of the apostles St Peter and St Paul, and the two lower ones by the name of the pope. The Rota was placed on the left of the subscription, the monogrammatic Benevalete on the right. The two signs were likewise adopted by certain ecclesiastical chanceries and by feudal lords, particularly in the 12th century. From the same period also the Spanish and Portuguese monarchs adopted the Rota, the signo rodado, which is so conspicuous in the royal charters of the Peninsula.

Besides the subscription, an early auxiliary method of authentication was by the impression of the seal which, as noticed above, was required by the Roman law. But the general use of the signet gradually failed, and by the 7th century it Sealing. had ceased. Still it survived in the royal chanceries, and the sovereigns both of the Merovingian and of the Carolingian lines had their seals; and, in the 8th century, the mayors of the palace likewise. It is interesting to find instances of the use of antique intaglios for the purpose by some of them. In England too there is proof that the Mercian kings Offa and Coenwulf used seals, in imitation of the Frankish monarchs. In the 7th century, and still more so in the 8th and 9th centuries, the royal seals were of exaggerated size: the precursors of the great seals of the later sovereigns of western Europe. The waxen seals of the early diplomas were in all cases en placard: that is, they were attached to the face of the document and not suspended from it, being held in position by a cross-cut incision in the material, through which the wax was pressed and then flattened at the back. On the cessation of autograph signatures in subscriptions, the general use of seals revived, beginning in the 10th century and becoming the ordinary method of authentication from the 12th to the 15th century inclusive. Even when signatures had once again become universal, the seal continued to hold its place; and thus sealing is, to the present day, required for the legal execution of a deed. The attachment en placard was discontinued, as a general practice, in the middle of the 11th century; and seals thenceforward were, for the most part, suspended, leathern thongs being used at first, and afterwards silken and hempen cords or parchment labels. In documents of minor importance it was sometimes the custom to impress the seal or seals on one or more strips of the parchment of the deed itself, cut, but not entirely detached, from the lower margin, and left to hang loose. Besides waxen impressions of seals, impressions in metal, bearing a device on both faces, after the fashion of a coin, and suspended, were employed from an early period. The most widely known instances are the bullae attached to papal documents, generally of lead. The earliest surviving papal bulla is one of Pope Zacharias, a.d. 746, but earlier examples are known from drawings. The papal bulla was a disk of metal stamped on both sides. From the time of Boniface V. to Leo IV., a.d. 617-855, the name of the pontiff, in the genitive case, was impressed on the obverse, and his title as pope on the reverse, e.g. Bonifati/ papae. After that period, for some time, the name was inscribed in a circle round a central ornament. Other variations followed; but at length in the pontificate of Paschal II., a.d. 1099, the bulla took the form which it afterwards retained: on the obverse, the heads of the apostles St Peter and St Paul; on the reverse, the pope’s name, title and number in succession. In the period of time between his election and consecration, the pope made use of the half-bull, that is, the obverse only was impressed. It should be mentioned that, in order to conform to modern conditions and for convenience of despatch through the post, Leo XII., in 1878, substituted for the leaden bulla a red ink stamp bearing the heads of the two apostles with the name of the pope inscribed as a legend.

The Carolingian monarchs also used metal bullae. None of Charlemagne’s have survived, but there are still extant leaden examples of Charles the Bald. The use of lead was not persisted in either in the chancery of France or in that of Germany. Golden bullae were employed on special occasions by both popes and temporal monarchs; for example, they were attached to the confirmations of the elections of the emperors in the 12th and 13th centuries; the bull of Leo X. conferring the title of Defender of the Faith on Henry VIII. in 1524, and the deed of alliance between Henry and Francis I. in 1527, had golden bullae; and other examples could be cited. But lead has always been the common metal to be thus employed. In the southern countries of Europe, where the warmth of the climate renders wax an undesirable material, leaden bullae have been in ordinary use, not only in Italy but also in the Peninsula, in southern France, and in the Latin East (see Seals).

The necessity of conforming to exact phraseology in diplomas and of observing regularity in expressing formulas naturally led to the compilation of formularies. From the early middle ages the art of composition, not only of charters but also of Formularies. general correspondence, was commonly taught in the monasteries. The teacher was the dictator, his method of teaching was described by the verb dictare, and his teaching was dictamen or the ars dictaminis. For the use of these monastic schools, formularies and manuals comprising formulas and models for the composition of the various acts and documents soon became indispensable. At a later stage such formularies developed into the models and treatises for epistolary style which have had their imitations even in modern times. The widespread use of the formularies had the advantage of imposing a certain degree of uniformity on the phrasing of documents of the western nations of Europe. Those compilations which are of an earlier period than the 11th century have been systematically examined and are published; those of more recent date still remain to be thoroughly edited. The early formularies are of the simpler kind, being collections of formulas without dissertation. The Formulae Marculfi, compiled by the monk Marculf about the year 650, was the most important work of this nature of the Merovingian period and became the official formulary of the time; and it continued in use in a revised edition in the early Carolingian chancery. Of the same period there are extant formularies compiled at various centres, such as Angers, Tours, Bourges, Sens, Reichenau, St Gall, Salzburg, Passau, Regensburg, Cordova, &c. (see Giry, Manuel de diplomatique, pp. 482-488). The Liber diurnus Romanorum Pontificum was compiled in the 7th and 8th centuries, and was employed in the papal chancery to the end of the 11th century. Of the more developed treatises and manuals of epistolary rhetoric which succeeded, and which originated in Italy, the earliest example was the Breviarium de dictamine of the monk Alberic of Monte Cassino, compiled about the year 1075. Another well-known work, the Rationes dictandi, is also attributed to the same author. Of later date was the Ars dictaminis of Bernard of Chartres of the 12th century. Among special works on formularies are: E. de Rozière, Recueil général des formules usitées dans l’empire des Francs (3 vols., Paris, 1861-1871); K. Zeumer, Formulae Merovingici et Karolini aevi (Hanover, 1886); and L. Rockinger, Briefsteller und Formelbücher des 11 bis. 14 Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1863-1864).

Organization.—The formalities observed by the different chanceries of medieval Europe, which are to be learned from a study of the documents issued by them, are so varied and often so minute, that it is impossible to give a full account of them within the limits of the present article. We can only state some of the results of the investigations of students of diplomatic.

The chancery which stands first and foremost is the papal chancery. On account of its antiquity and of its steady development, it has served as a model for the other chanceries of Europe. Organized in remote times, it adopted for Papal Chancery. the structure of its letters a number of formulas and rules which developed and became more and more fixed and precise from century to century. The Apostolic court being organized from the first on the model of the Roman imperial court, the early pontiffs would naturally have collected their archives, as the emperors had done, into scrinia. Pope Julius I., a.d. 337-353, reorganized the papal archives under an official schola notariorum, at the head of which was a primicerius notariorum. Pope Damasus, a.d. 366-384, built a record office at the Lateran, archivium sanctae Romanae ecclesiae, where the archives were kept and registers of them compiled. The collection and orderly arrangement of the archives provided material for the establishment of regular diplomatic usages, and the science of formulae naturally followed.

For the study of papal documents four periods have been defined, each successive period being distinguished from its predecessor by some particular development of forms and procedure. The first period is reckoned from the earliest times to the accession of Leo IX., a.d. 1048. For almost the whole of the first eight centuries no original papal documents have survived. But copies are found in canonical works and registers, many of them false, and others probably not transcribed in full or in the original words; but still of use, as showing the growth of formulas. The earliest original document is a fragment of a letter of Adrian I., a.d. 788. From that date there is a series, but the documents are rare to the beginning of the 11th century, all down to that period being written on papyrus. The latest existing papyrus document in France is one of Sergius IV., a.d. 1011; in Germany, one of Benedict VIII., a.d. 1022. The earliest document on vellum is one of John XVIII., a.d. 1005. The nomenclature of papal documents even at an early period is rather wide. In their earliest form they are Letters, called in the documents themselves, litterae, epistola, pagina, scriptum, sometimes decretum. A classification, generally accepted, divides them into: 1. Letters or Epistles: the ordinary acts of correspondence with persons of all ranks and orders; including constitutions (a later term) or decisions in matters of faith and discipline, and encyclicals giving directions to bishops of the whole church or of individual countries. 2. Decrees, being letters promulgated by the popes of their own motion. 3. Decretals, decisions on points of ecclesiastical administration or discipline. 4. Rescripts (called in the originals preceptum, auctoritas, privilegium), granting requests to petitioners. But writers differ in their terms, and such subdivisions must be more or less arbitrary. The comprehensive term “bull” (the name of the leaden papal seal, bulla, being transferred to the document) did not come into use until the 13th century.

Copies of papal deeds were collected into registers or bullaria. Lists showing the chronological sequence of documents are catalogues of acts. When into such lists indications from narrative sources are introduced they become regesta (res gestae): a term not to be confused with “register.”

Clearness and conciseness have been recognized as attributes of early papal letters; but even in those of the 4th century certain rhythmical periods have been detected in their composition which became more marked under Leo the Great, a.d. 440-461, and which developed into the cursus or prose rhythm of the pontifical chancery of the 11th and 12th centuries.

In the most ancient deeds the pope styles himself Episcopus, sometimes Episcopus Catholicae Ecclesiae, or Episcopus Romanae Ecclesiae, rarely Papa. Gregory I, a.d. 590, was the first to adopt the form Episcopus, servus servorum Dei, which became general in the 9th century, and thenceforth was invariable.

The second period of papal documents extends from Leo IX. to the accession of Innocent III., a.d. 1048-1198. At the beginning of the period formulae tended to take more definite shape and to become fixed. In the superscription of bulls a distinction arose: those which conferred lasting privileges employing the words in perpetuum to close this clause; those whose benefaction was of a transitory character using the form of salutation, salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. But it was under Urban II., a.d. 1088-1099, that the principal formulae became stereotyped. Then the distinction between documents of lasting, and those of transitory, value became more exactly defined; the former class being known as greater bulls, bullae majores (also called privilegia), the latter lesser bulls, bullae minores. The leading characteristics of the greater bulls were these: The first line containing the superscription and closing with the words in perpetuum (or, sometimes, ad perpetuam, or aeternam, rei memoriam) was written in tall and slender ornamental letters, close packed; the final clauses of the text develop with tendency to fixity; the pope’s subscription is accompanied with the rota on the left and the benevalete monogram on the right; and certain elaborate forms of dating are punctiliously observed. The introduction of subscriptions of cardinals as witnesses had gradually become a practice. Under Victor II., a.d. 1055-1057, the practice became more confirmed, and after the time of Innocent II., a.d. 1130-1145, the subscriptions of the three orders were arranged according to rank, those of the cardinal bishops being placed in the centre under the papal subscription, those of the priests under the rota on the left, and those of the deacons under the benevalete on the right. In the lesser bulls simpler forms were employed; there was no introductory line of stilted letters; the salutation, salutem et apostolicam benedictionem, closed the superscription; the final clauses were shortened; there was neither papal subscription, nor rota, nor benevalete; the date was simple.

From the time of Adrian I., a.d. 772-795, the system of double dating was followed in the larger bulls. The first date was written by the scribe of the document, scriptum per manum N. with the month (rarely the day of the month) and year of the indiction. The second, the actual date of the execution of the deed, was entered (ostensibly) by some high official, data, or datum, per manum N., and contained the day of the month (according to the Roman calendar), the year of indiction, the year of pontificate (in some early deeds, also the year of the empire and the post-consulate year), and the year of the Incarnation, which, however, was gradually introduced and only became more common in the course of the 11th century. For example, a common form of a full date would run thus: Datum Laterani, per manum N., sanctae Romanae ecclesiae diaconi cardinalis, xiiii. kl. Maii, indictione V., anno dominicae Incarnationis mxcvii., pontificatus autem domini papae Urbani secundi Xº. The simpler form of the date of a lesser bull might be: Datum Laterani, iii. non. Jan., pontificatus nostri anno iiii.

By degrees the use of the lesser bulls almost entirely superseded that of the greater bulls, which became exceptional in the 13th century and almost ceased after the migration to Avignon in 1309. In modern times the greater bulls occasionally reappear for very solemn acts, as bullae consistoriales, executed in the consistory.

The third period of papal documents extends from Innocent III. to Eugenius IV., a.d. 1198-1431. The pontificate of Innocent III. was a most important epoch in the history of the development of the papal chancery. Formulas became more exactly fixed, definitions more precise, the observation of rules and precedents more constant. The staff of the chancery was reorganized. The existing series of registers of papal documents was then commenced. The growing use of lesser bulls for the business of the papal court led to a further development in the 13th century. They were now divided into two classes: Tituli and Mandamenta. The former conferred favours, promulgated precepts, judgments, decisions, &c. The latter comprised ordinances, commissions, &c., and were executive documents. There are certain features which distinguish the two classes. In the tituli, the initial letter of the pope’s name is ornamented with openwork and the other letters are stilted. In the mandamenta, the initial is filled in solid and the other letters are of the same size as the rest of the text. In the tituli, enlarged letters mark the beginnings of the text and of certain clauses; but not in the mandamenta. In the former the mark of abbreviation is a looped sign; in the latter it is a horizontal stroke. In the former the old practice of leaving a gap between the letters s and t, and c and t, whenever they occur together in a word (e.g. is te, sanc tus), and linking them by a coupling stroke above the line is continued; in the latter it disappears. The leaden bulla attached to a titulus (as a permanent deed) is suspended by cords of red and yellow silks; while that of a mandamentum (a temporary deed) hangs from a hempen cord.

In the fourth period, extending from 1431 to the present time, the tituli and mandamenta have continued to be the ordinary documents in use; but certain other kinds have also arisen. Briefs (brevia), or apostolic letters, concerning the personal affairs of the pope or the administration of the temporal dominion, or conceding indulgences, came into general use in the 13th century in the pontificate of Eugenius IV. They are written in the italic hand on thin white vellum; and the name of the pope with his style as papa is written at the head of the sheet, e.g. Eugenius papa iiii. They are closed and sealed with Seal of the Fisherman, sub anulo Piscatoris. Briefs have almost superseded the mandamenta. The documents known as Signatures of the court of Rome or Latin letters, and used principally for the expedition of indulgences, were first introduced in the 15th century. They were drawn in the form of a petition to the pope, which he granted by the words fiat ut petatur written across the top. They were not sealed; and only the pontifical year appears in the date. Lastly, the documents to which the name of Motu proprio is given are also without seal and are used in the administration of the papal court, the formula placet et ita motu proprio mandamus being signed by the pope.

The character of the handwriting employed by the papal chancery is discussed in the article Palaeography. Here it will be enough to state that the early style was derived from the Lombardic hand, and that it continued in use down to the beginning of the 12th century; but that, from the 10th century, owing to the general adoption of the Caroline minuscule writing, it began to fall and gradually became so unfamiliar to the uninitiated, that, while it still continued in use for papal bulls, it was found necessary to accompany them with copies written in the more intelligible Caroline script. The intricate, fanciful character, known as the Litera sancti Petri, was invented in the time of Clement VIII., a.d. 1592-1605, was fully developed under Alexander VIII., 1689-1691, and was only abolished at the end of the year 1878 by Leo XIII.

Of the chancery of the Merovingian line of kings as many as ninety authentic diplomas are known, and, of these, thirty-seven are originals, the earliest being of the year 625. The most ancient examples were written on papyrus, vellum Merovingian chancery. superseding that material towards the end of the 7th century. All these diplomas are technically letters, having the superscription and address and, at the foot, close to the seal, the valedictory benevalete. They commence with a monogrammatic invocation, which, together with the superscription and address written in fanciful elongated letters, occupies the first line. The superscription always runs in the form, N. rex Francorum. The most complete kinds of diplomas were authenticated by the king’s subscription, that of the referendarius (the official charged with the custody of the royal seal), the impression of the seal, and exceptionally by subscriptions of prelates and great personages. The royal subscription was usually autograph; but, if the sovereign were too young or too illiterate to write, a monogram was traced by the scribe. The referendary, if he countersigned the royal subscription, added the word optulit to his own signature; if he subscribed independently, he wrote recognovit et subscripsit, the end of the last word being usually lost in flourishes forming a ruche. The date gave the place, day, month and year of the reign. The Merovingian royal diplomas are of two classes: (1) Precepts, conferring gifts, favours, immunities and confirmations, entitled in the documents themselves as praeceptum, praeceptio, auctoritas; some drawn up in full form, with preamble and ample final clauses; others less precise and formal. (2) Judgments (judicia), which required no preamble or final clauses as they were records of the sovereign’s judicial decisions; they were subscribed by the referendary and were sealed with the royal seal. Other classes of documents were the cartae de mundeburde, taking persons under the royal protection, and indiculi or letters transmitting orders or notifying decisions; but no examples have survived.

The diplomas of the early Carolingians differed, as was natural, but little from those of their predecessors. As mayors of the palace, Charles Martel and Pippin took the style of vir inluster. On becoming king, Pippin retained it; Carolingian chancery. Pippinus, vir inluster, rex Francorum, and it continued to be part of the royal title till Charlemagne became emperor. The royal subscription was in form of a sign-manual or mark, but Charlemagne elaborated this into a monogram of the letters of his name built up on a cross. In 775 the royal title of Charlemagne became Carolus, gratia Dei rex Francorum et Langobardorum, ac patricius Romanorum, the last words being assumed on his visit to Rome in 774. On becoming emperor in 800, he was styled Imperator, Romanum gubernans imperium, rex Francorum et Langobardorum. It is to be noticed that thenceforth his name was spelt with initial K (as it was on the monogram), having previously been written with C in the deeds. Most of his diplomas were authenticated by the subscription of the chancellor and impression of the seal. A novelty in the form of dating was also introduced, two words, datum (for time) and actum (for place), being now employed. The character of the writing of the diplomas, founded on the Roman cursive hand, which had become very intricate under the Merovingians, improved under their successors, yet the reform which was introduced into the literary script hardly affected the cursive writing of diplomatic until the latter part of Charlemagne’s reign. The archaic style was particularly maintained in judgments, which were issued by the private chancery of the palace, a department more conservative in its methods than the imperial chancery. It was in the reign of Louis Debonair, a.d. 814-840, that the Carolingian diploma took its final shape. A variation now appears in the monogram, that monarch’s sign-manual being built up, not on a cross as previously, but on the letter H., the initial of his name Hludovicus, and serving as the pattern for successive monarchs of the name of Louis.

In the Carolingian chancery the staff was exclusively ecclesiastical; at its head was the chancellor, whose title is traced back to the cancellarius, or petty officer under the Roman empire, stationed at the bar or lattice (cancelli) of the basilica or other law court and serving as usher. As keeper of the royal archives his subscription was indispensable for royal acts. The diplomas were drawn up by the notaries, an important body, upon whom devolved the duty of maintaining the formulae and traditions of the office. It has been observed that in the 9th century the documents were drawn carefully, but that in the 10th century there was a great degeneration in this respect. Under the early Capetian kings there was great confusion and want of uniformity in their diplomas; and it was not until the reign of Louis VI., a.d. 1108, that the formulae were again reduced to rules.

The acts of the imperial chancery of Germany followed the patterns of the Carolingian diplomas, with little variation down to the reign of Frederick Barbarossa, a.d. 1152-1190. The sovereign’s style was N. divina favente clementia rex; Imperial German chancery. after coronation at Rome he became imperator augustus. At the end of the 10th century, Otto III. developed the latter title into Romanorum imperator augustus. Under Henry III., and regularly from the time of Henry V., a.d. 1106-1125, the title before coronation has been Romanorum rex. The royal monogram did not necessarily contain all the letters of the name; but, on the other hand, from the year 976, it became more complicated and combined the imperial title with the name. For example, the monogram of Henry II. combines the words Henricus Romanorum imperator augustus. The flourished ruches also, as in the Frankish chanceries, were in vogue. Eventually they were used by certain of the chancellors as a sign-manual and took fanciful shapes, such as a building with a cupola, or even a diptych. They disappear early in the 12th century, the period when in other respects the chancery of the Holy Roman Empire largely adopted a more simple style in its diplomas. Lists of witnesses, in support of the royal and official subscriptions, were sometimes added in the course of the 11th century, and they appear regularly in documents a hundred years later.

For the study of diplomatic in England, material exists in two distinct series of documents, those of the Anglo-Saxon period, and those subsequent to the Norman Conquest. The Anglo-Saxon kings appear to have borrowed, partially, the Diplomatic in England. style of their diplomas from the chanceries of their Frankish neighbours, introducing at the same time modifications which give those documents a particular character marking their nationality. In some of the earlier examples we find that the lines of the foreign style are followed more or less closely; but very soon a simpler model was adopted which, while it varied in formulas from reign to reign, lasted in general construction down to the time of the Norman Conquest. The royal charters were usually drawn up in Latin, sometimes in Anglo-Saxon, and began with a preamble or exordium (in some instances preceded by an invocation headed with the chrismon or with a cross), in the early times of a simple character, but, later, drawn out not infrequently to great length in involved and bombastic periods. Then immediately followed the disposing or granting clause, often accompanied with a few words explaining the motive, such as, for the good of the soul of the grantor; and the text was closed with final clauses of varying extent, protecting the deed against infringement, &c. In early examples the dating clause gave the day and month (often according to the Roman calendar) and the year of the indiction; but the year of the Incarnation was also immediately adopted; and, later, the regnal year also. The position of this clause in the charter was subject to variation. The subscriptions of the king and of the personages witnessing the deed, each preceded by a cross, but all written by the hand of the scribe, usually closed the charter. A peculiarity was the introduction, in many instances, either in the body of the charter, or in a separate paragraph at the end, of the boundaries of the land granted, written in the native tongue. The sovereigns of the several kingdoms of the Heptarchy, as well as those of the United Kingdom, usually styled themselves rex. But from the time of Æthelstan, a.d. 825-840, they also assumed fantastic titles in the text of their charters, such as: rex et primicerius, rex et rector, gubernator et rector, monarchus, and particularly the Greek basileus, and basileus industrius. At the same time the name of Albion was also frequently used for Britain.

A large number of documents of the Anglo-Saxon period, dating from the 7th century, has survived, both original and copies entered in chartularies. Of distinct documents there are nearly two hundred; but a large proportion of these must be set aside as copies (both contemporary and later) or as spurious deeds.

Although there is evidence, as above stated, of the use of seals by certain of the Mercian kings, the method of authentication of diplomas by seal impression was practically unknown to the Anglo-Saxon sovereigns, save only to Edward the Confessor, who, copying the custom which obtained upon the continent, adopted the use of a great seal.

With the Norman Conquest the old tradition of the Anglo-Saxons disappeared. The Conqueror brought with him the practice of the Roman chancery, which naturally followed the Capetian model; and his diplomas of English origin differed only from those of Normandy by the addition of his new style, rex Anglorum, in the superscription. But even from the first there was a tendency to simplicity in the new English chancery, not improbably suggested by the brief formalities of Anglo-Saxon charters, and, side by side with the more formal royal diplomas, others of shorter form and less ceremony were issued, which by the reign of Henry II. quite superseded the more solemn documents. These simpler charters began with the royal superscription, the address, and the salutation, e.g. Willelmus, Dei gratia rex Anglorum, N. episcopo et omnibus baronibus et fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis salutem. Then followed the notification and the grant, e.g. Sciatis me concessisse, &c., generally without final clauses, or, if any, brief clauses of protection and warranty; and, at the end, the list of witnesses and the date. The regnal year was usually cited; but the year of the Incarnation was also sometimes given. The great seal was appended. To some of the Conqueror’s charters his subscription and those of his queen and sons are attached, written by the scribe, but accompanied with crosses which may or may not be autograph. By the reign of John the simpler form of royal charters had taken final shape, and from this time the acts of the kings of England have been classified under three heads: viz. (1) Charters, generally of the pattern described above; (2) Letters patent, in which the address is general, Universis presentes litteras inspecturis, &c.; the corroborative clause describes the character of the document, In cujus rei testimonium has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes; the king himself is his own witness, Teste me ipso; and the great seal is appended; (3) Close letters, administrative documents conveying orders, the king witnessing, Teste me ipso.

The style of the English kings down to John was, with few exceptions, Rex Anglorum; thenceforward, Rex Angliae. Henry II. added the feudal titles, dux Normannorum et Aquitanorum et comes Andegavorum, which Henry III. curtailed to dux Aquitaniae. John added the title dominus Hiberniae; Edward III., on claiming the crown of France, styled himself rex Angliae et Franciae, the same title being borne by successive kings down to the year 1801; and Henry VIII., in 1521, assumed the title of fidei defensor. The formula Dei gratia does not consistently accompany the royal title until the reign of Henry II., who adopted it in 1173 (see L. Delisle, Mémoire sur la chronologie des chartes de Henri II., in the Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, lxvii. 361-401).

The forms adopted in the royal chanceries were naturally imitated in the composition of private deeds which in all countries form the mass of material for historical and diplomatic research. The student of English diplomatic will soon Private deeds. remark how readily the private charters, especially conveyances of real property, fall into classes, and how stereotyped the phraseology and formulae of each class become, only modified from time to time by particular acts of legislation. The brevity of the early conveyances is maintained through successive generations, with only moderate growth as time progresses through the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries. The different kinds of deeds which the requirements of society have from time to time called into existence must be learned by the student from the text-books. But a particular form of document which was especially in favour in England should be mentioned. This was the chirograph (Gr. χείρ, a hand, γράφειν, to write), which is found even in the Anglo-Saxon period, and which got its name from the word chirographum, cirographum or cyrographum being written in large letters at the head of the deed. At first the word was written, presumably, at the head of each of the two authentic copies which the two parties to a transaction would require. Then it became the habit to use the word thus written as a tally, the two copies of the deed being written on one sheet, head to head, with the word between them, which was then cut through longitudinally in a straight, or more commonly waved or indented (in modum dentium) line, each of the two copies thus having half of the word at the head. Any other word, or a series of letters, might thus be employed; and more than two copies of a deed could thus be made to tally. The chirograph was the precursor of the modern indenture, the commonest form of English deeds, though no longer a tally. In other countries, the notarial instrument has performed the functions which the chirograph and indenture have discharged for us.

Authorities.—General treatises, handbooks,, &c., are J. Mabillon, De re diplomatica (1709); Tassin and Toustain, Nouveau Traité de diplomatique (1750-1765); T. Madox, Formulare Anglicanum (1702); G. Hickes, Linguarum septentrionalium thesaurus (1703-1705); F. S. Maffei, Istoria diplomatica (1727); G. Marini, I Papiri diplomatici (1805); G. Bessel, Chronicon Gotwicense (De diplomatibus imperatorum ac regum Germaniae) (1732); A. Fumagalli, Delle istituzioni diplomatiche (1802); M. F. Kopp, Palaeographia critica (1817-1829); K. T. G. Schönemann, Versuch eines vollstandigen Systems der Diplomatik (1818); T. Sickel, Lehre von den Urkunden der ersten Karolinger (1867); J. Ficker, Beiträge zur Urkundenlehre (1877-1878); A. Gloria, Compendio delle lezioni di paleografia e diplomatica (1870); C. Paoli, Programma scolastico di paleografia Latina e di diplomatica (1888-1890); H. Bresslau, Handbuch der Urkundenlehre für Deutschland und Italien (1889); A. Giry, Manuel de diplomatique (1894); F. Leist, Urkundenlehre (1893); E. M. Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography, cap. xix. (1906); J. M. Kemble, Codex diplomaticus aevi Saxonici (1839-1848); W. G. Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum (1885-1893); J. Muñoz y Rivero, Manuel de paleografia diplomatica Española (1890); M. Russi, Paleografia e diplomatica de’ documenti delle provincie Napolitane (1883). Facsimiles are given in J. B. Silvestrestre Paléographie universelle (English edition, 1850); and in the Facsimiles, &c., published by the Palaeographical Society (1873-1894) and the New Palaeographical Society (1903, &c.); and also in the following works:—A. Champollion-Figeac, Chartes et manuscrits sur papyrus (1840); J. A. Letronne, Diplómes et chartes de l’époque mérovingienne (1845-1866); J. Tardif, Archives de l’Empire: Facsimilé de chartes et diplômes mérovingiens et carlovingiens (1866); G. H. Pettz, Schrifttafeln zum Gebrauch bei diplomatischen Vorlesungen (1844-1869); H. von Sybel and T. Sickel, Kaiserurkunden in Abbildungen (1880-1891); J. von Pflugk-Harttung, Specimina selecta chartarum Pontificum Romanorum (1885-1887); Specimina palaeographica regestorum Romanorum pontificum (1888); Recueil de fac-similés à l’usage de l’École des Chartes (not published) (1880, &c.); J. Muñoz y Rivero, Chrestomathia palaeographica: scripturae Hispanae veteris specimina (1890); E. A. Bond, Facsimiles of Ancient Charters in the British Museum (1873-1878): W. B. Sanders, Facsimiles of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts (charters) (1878-1884); G. F. Warner and H. J. Ellis, Facsimiles of Royal and other Charters in the British Museum (1903).

(E. M. T.)

DIPOENUS and SCYLLIS, early Greek sculptors, who worked together, and are said to have been pupils of Daedalus. Pliny assigns to them the date 580 b.c., and says that they worked at Sicyon, which city from their time onwards became one of the great schools of sculpture. They also made statues for Cleonae and Argos. They worked in wood, ebony and ivory, and apparently also in marble. It is curious that no inscription bearing their names has come to light.

DIPPEL, JOHANN KONRAD (1673-1734), German theologian and alchemist, son of a Lutheran pastor, was born at the castle of Frankenstein, near Darmstadt, on the 10th of August 1673. He studied theology at Giessen. After a short visit to Wittenberg he went to Strassburg, where he lectured on alchemy and chiromancy, and occasionally preached. He gained considerable popularity, but was obliged after a time to quit the city, owing to his irregular manner of living. He had up to this time espoused the cause of the orthodox as against the pietists; but in his two first works, published under the name “Christianus Democritus,” Orthodoxia Orthodoxorum (1697) and Papismus vapulans Protestantium (1698), he assailed the fundamental positions of the Lutheran theology. He held that religion consisted not in dogma but exclusively in love and self-sacrifice. To avoid persecution he was compelled to wander from place to place in Germany, Holland, Denmark and Sweden. He took the degree of doctor of medicine at Leiden in 1711. He discovered Prussian blue, and by the destructive distillation of bones prepared the evil-smelling product known as Dippel’s animal oil. He died near Berleburg on the 25th of April 1734.

An enlarged edition of Dippel’s collected works was published at Berleburg in 1743. See the biographies by J. C. G. Ackermann (Leipzig, 1781), H. V. Hoffmann (Darmstadt, 1783), K. Henning (1881) and W. Bender (Bonn, 1882); also a memoir by K. Bucher in the Historisches Taschenbuch for 1858.

DIPSOMANIA (from Gr. δίψα, thirst, and μανία, madness), a term formerly applied to the attacks of delirium (q.v.) caused by alcoholic poisoning. It is now sometimes loosely used as equivalent to the condition of incurable inebriates, but strictly should be confined to the pathological and insatiable desire for alcohol, sometimes occurring in paroxysms.

DIPTERA (δίς, double, πτερά, wings), a term (first employed in its modern sense by Linnaeus, Fauna Suecica, 1st ed., 1746, p. 306) used in zoological classification for one of the Orders into which the Hexapoda, or Insecta, are divided. The relation of the Diptera (two-winged flies, or flies proper) to the other Orders is dealt with under Hexapoda (q.v.).

The chief characteristic of the Diptera is expressed in the name of the Order, since, with the exception of certain aberrant and apterous forms, flies possess but a single pair of membranous wings, which are attached to the meso-thorax. Wing-covers and hind-wings are alike absent, and the latter are represented by a pair of little knobbed organs, the halteres or balancers, which have a controlling and directing function in flight. The other structural characters of the Order may be briefly summarized as:—mouth-parts adapted for piercing and sucking, or for suction alone, and consisting of a proboscis formed of the labium, and enclosing modifications of the other usual parts of the mouth, some of which, however, may be wanting; a thorax fused into a single mass; and legs with five-jointed tarsi. The wings, which are not capable of being folded, are usually transparent, but occasionally pigmented and adorned with coloured spots, blotches or bands; the wing-membrane, though sometimes clothed with minute hairs, seldom bears scales; the wing-veins, which are of great importance in the classification of Diptera, are usually few in number and chiefly longitudinal, there being a marked paucity of cross-veins. In a large number of Diptera an incision in the posterior margin of the wing, near the base, marks off a small lobe, the posterior lobe or alula, while connected with this but situated on the thorax itself there is a pair of membranous scales, or squamae, which when present serve to conceal the halteres. The antennae of Diptera, which are also extremely important in classification, are thread-like in the more primitive families, such as the Tipulidae (daddy-long-legs), where they consist of a considerable number of joints, all of which except the first two, and sometimes also the last two, are similar in shape; in the more specialized families, such as the Tabanidae (horse-flies), Syrphidae (hover-flies) or Muscidae (house-flies, blue-bottles and their allies), the number of antennal joints is greatly reduced by coalescence, so that the antennae appear to consist of only three joints. In these forms, however, the third joint is really a complex, which in many families bears in addition a jointed bristle (arista) or style, representing the terminal joints of the primitive antenna. Although in the case of the majority of Diptera the body is more or less clothed with hair, the hairy covering is usually so short that to the unaided eye the insects appear almost bare; some forms, however, such as the bee-flies (Bombylius) and certain robber-flies (Asilidae) are conspicuously hairy. Bristles are usually present on the legs, and in the case of many families on the body also; those on the head and thorax are of great importance in classification.

Between 40,000 and 50,000 species of Diptera are at present known, but these are only a fraction of those actually in existence. The species recognized as British number some 2700, but to this total additions are constantly being made. As a rule flies are of small or moderate size, and many, such as certain blood-sucking midges of the genus Ceratopogon, are even minute; as extremes of size may be mentioned a common British midge, Ceratopogon varius, the female of which measures only 1¼ millimetre, and the gigantic Mydaidae of Central and South America as well as certain Australian robber-flies, which have a body 1¾ in. long, with a wing-expanse of 3¼ in. In bodily form Diptera present two main types, either, as in the case of the more primitive and generalized families, they are gnat- or midge-like in shape, with slender bodies and long, delicate legs, or else they exhibit a more or less distinct resemblance to the common house-fly, having compact and stoutly built bodies and legs of moderate length. Diptera in general are not remarkable for brilliancy of coloration; as a rule they are dull and inconspicuous in hue, the prevailing body-tints being browns and greys; occasionally, however, more especially in species (Syrphidae) that mimic Hymenoptera, the body is conspicuously banded with yellow; a few are metallic, such as the species of Formosia, found in the islands of the East Indian Archipelago, which are among the most brilliant of all insects. The sexes in Diptera are usually alike, though in a number of families with short antennae the males are distinguished by the fact that their eyes meet together (or nearly so) on the forehead. Metamorphosis in Diptera is complete; the larvae are utterly different from the perfect insects in appearance, and, although varying greatly in outward form, are usually footless grubs; those of the Muscidae are generally known as maggots. The pupa either shows the appendages of the perfect insect, though these are encased in a sheath and adherent to the body, or else it is entirely concealed within the hardened and contracted larval integument, which forms a barrel-shaped protecting capsule or puparium.

Diptera are divided into some sixty families, the exact classification of which has not yet been finally settled. The majority of authors, however, follow Brauer in dividing the order into two sections, Orthorrhapha and Cyclorrhapha, according to the manner in which the pupa-case splits to admit of the escape of the perfect insect. The general characteristics of the pupae in these two sections have already been described.

In the Orthorrhapha, in the pupae of which the appendages of the perfect insect are usually visible, the pupa-case generally splits in a straight line down the back near the cephalic end; in front of this longitudinal cleft there may be a small transverse one, the two together forming a T-shaped fissure. In the Cyclorrhapha on the other hand, in which the actual pupa is concealed within the hardened larval skin, the imago escapes through a circular orifice formed by pushing off or through the head end of the puparium. The Diptera Orthorrhapha include the more primitive and less specialized families such as the Tipulidae (daddy-long-legs), Culicidae (gnats or mosquitoes), Chironomidae (midges), Mycetophilidae (fungus-midges), Tabanidae (horse-flies), Asilidae (robber-flies), &c. The Diptera Cyclorrhapha on the other hand consist of the most highly specialized families, such as the Syrphidae (hover-flies), Oestridae (bot and warble flies), and Muscidae (sensu latiore—the house-fly and its allies, including tsetse-flies, flesh-flies, Tachininae, or flies the larvae of which are internal parasites of caterpillars, &c). It is customary to divide the Orthorrhapha into the two divisions Nematocera and Brachycera, in the former of which the antennae are elongate and in a more or less primitive condition, as described above, while in the latter these organs are short, and, as already explained, apparently composed of only three joints.

Within the divisions named—Orthorrhapha Nematocera, Orthorrhapha Brachycera and Cyclorrhapha—the constituent families are usually grouped into a series of “superfamilies,” distinguished by features of structure or habit. Certain extremely aberrant Diptera, which, in consequence of the adoption of a parasitic mode of life, have undergone great structural modification, are further remarkable for their peculiar mode of reproduction, on account of which the families composing the group are often termed Pupipara. In these forms the pregnant female, instead of laying eggs, as Diptera usually do, or even producing a number of minute living larvae, gives birth at one time but to a single larva, which is retained within the oviduct of the mother until adult, and assumes the pupal state immediately on extrusion. The Pupipara are also termed Eproboscidea (although they actually possess a well-developed and functional proboscis), and by some dipterists the Eproboscidea are regarded as a suborder and contrasted as such with the rest of the Diptera, which are styled the suborder Proboscidea. By other writers Proboscidea and Eproboscidea are treated as primary divisions of the Cyclorrhapha. In reality, however, the families designated Eproboscidea (Hippoboscidae, Braulidae, Nycteribiidae and Streblidae), are not entitled to be considered as constituting either a suborder, or even a main division of the Cyclorrhapha; they are simply Cyclorrhapha much modified owing to parasitism, and in view of the closely similar mode of reproduction in the tsetse-flies the special designation Pupipara should be abandoned. Before leaving the subject of classification it may be noted in passing that in 1906 Professor Lameere, of Brussels, proposed a scheme for the classification of Diptera which as regards both the limits of the families and their grouping into higher categories differs considerably from that in current use.