died suddenly in 1641. It is supposed that he was poisoned. He was a man of modest disposition, diligent and conscientious in his work, and capable of fine and high emotions.

Domenichino and Guido Reni were the most important of the pupils of the Carracci, and Domenichino was the most naturalistic of them all. His art is midway between that of the Carracci and Caravaggio. His works are uneven in color, and the dominating tone is a soft gray. He was fond of using landscapes as backgrounds, which were of high decorative value. His portraits belong to the best done by the Bolognese School, good examples being his own portrait and that of Cardinal Agucchi, in the Uffizi Gallery, in Florence. As an architect he did some creditable work, but as a sculptor he was less successful. Consult the authorities referred to under BOLOGNESE SCHOOL OF PAINTING.

DOMESDAY BOOK, or DOOMSDAY BOOK. A statistical account of the state of England in the latter part of the eleventh century, prepared by command of William the Conqueror in the year or years just preceding 1086. It is one of the oldest and most valuable of English historical records. The origin and significance of the name is a matter of dispute. The Anglo-Saxon Domas were laws or dooms, and the term Dom-boc occurs in the laws of King Æthelstan and in the ecclesiastical laws of King Edgar. In a specific sense, the Anglo-Saxon Gospels use the word domesdæg for 'judgment day.' The inference, therefore, is that, as applied to the famous record which became the embodiment of the King's will and the ultimate basis for the adjustment of all future land relations, the term contains the two ideas of supreme authority and of final judgment or doom. The book has been known by several other names. It is mentioned as the Rotulus Wintonie, or the "Winchester Roll"; Scripturæ Thesauri Regis, or "The Writings of the King's Treasury"; Liber de Wintonia, or the "Book of Winchester"; and Liber Regis, or "The King's Book." The book itself hears in its colophon or seal the simple title Descriptio.

An anonymous contemporary has told the story of the Domesday Book in simple and vig orous language, and a translation of this plain and faithful narrative will best describe the way in which the work was first set on foot: "In the year 1085,

. . at midwinter, the King (William the Conqueror) was at Gloucester with his Great Council, and there held his court five days; and afterwards the archbishop and clergy had a synod of three days. There were Maurice chosen bishop for London, and William for Norfolk, and Robert for Cheshire. They were all the King's clerks. After this the King had a great consultation and very deep speech with his council about this land-how it was peopled, or by what men. He then sent his men all over England, into every shire, and caused them to ascertain how many hundred hides of land it contained, and what lands the King had in it, what castles there were in the several counties, and how much revenue he ought to get yearly from each. He also caused them to write down how much land belonged to his archbishops, his bishops, his abbots, and his earls, and that I may be brief-what property every inhabitant of England possessed in land or in cattle, and how much money this was worth. So very straitly did he

cause the survey to be made that there was not a single hide nor a yardland of ground, nor-it is shameful to say what he thought no shame to do was there an ox or a cow or a pig passed by that was not set down in the accounts, and then all these writings were brought to him.” The survey was made by the King's commissioners, but they seem to have had the aid of the chief men of every shire. A sworn jury, composed of the sheriff, lords of manors, priests, heads of hundreds, bailiffs, and six village tenants, made the inquest. There has been preserved for us the "Inquest of the County of Cambridge," an original return of the survey of that county. From this the Domesday Book for Cambridgeshire was afterwards compiled by the royal secretaries. In making this transcription, many errors and omissions were made. The same fact is noted when the Domesday Book is compared with the Exeter Domesday, an original return for the five southwestern counties of England. The enumeration of the cattle and swine, which the chronicler thought so shameful, is recorded in the original return for these counties, but is omitted from the Domesday Book. The omission was doubtless intentional, because such data could have no permanent importance. The errors and omissions, however, indicate beyond doubt that the persons who collected the original information were not. the compilers and writers of the Domesday Book.

The local jury made the inquest as to the name of the place, who held it in King Edward's time (1042-66), and who was the actual possessor. They ascertained the number of hides in the manor, and what portion was reserved in the lord's own hand. The villeins, cotters, and serfs, freemen and socmen were enumerated. A census. was made of the wood, meadow, and pasture, together with the number of mills and fish-ponds. Of all this there was to be a threefold return or valuation-as the land was held in King Edward's days, as it had been given by King William, and as it stood at the time the survey was made-and the jurors were to say further whether the assessment could now be raised. On the basis of the divisions of the country given in Domesday the taxes were levied.

The value of Domesday as an historical document can best be understood from an enumeration of the subjects which it elucidates. Besides giving the names of all those who held land under King Edward, and of the fortunate Normans who supplanted them after the Conquest, the book treats of the ancient customs of the realm in great detail. It describes the duties of the cities and towns when the King visited them, sets forth all the titular distinctions of the period, ecclesiastic, official, and lay, and mentions the different trades and occupations of the time. There is a classified census of the people, together with an account of the condition of the country, town, and city population. measures of land are amply recorded, as are also the territorial names, jurisdictions, franchises, tenures, and services. Lists of foreign tenants and lands held by foreign monasteries have been compiled from the names enumerated in the book. Castles, manors, and markets find mention, as well as the condition of the churches, with their endowments and tithes. The book contains information about the metals in use at the time, and also about the quarries of stone and the springs from which salt was obtained. Eight varieties

The

DOMESDAY BOOK.

of money are spoken of, and interesting facts are given about their use. Finally, we get occasional hints as to the legal procedure of the time, both civil and criminal. The mere statement which has been made of its contents is enough to show the immense value of the Domesday Book for all purposes of inquiry into the condition of England under the early Norman kings. "It will ever," says Dr. Lappenberg (History of England Under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, London, 1845), "be found an inexhaustible source of information respecting the Anglo-Saxon and Norman constitutions, particularly in regard to the rights and revenues of the kings and their vassals, the relations of cities and towns, statistical accounts of various kinds, families and landowners, together with innumerable matters highly interesting to inquiring posterity, though unnoticed by the chroniclers of those times, either

as too well known or as worthless. An inti

mate acquaintance with Domesday should supply the basis of every historical account of England, particularly of its special history during the Middle Ages."

The Domesday Book first appeared in print in 1783, in two folios. Types were cast for the purpose, so as to represent the abbreviations and contractions of the original manuscript. work was ten years in passing through the press. In 1816 two supplementary volumes were published. One contained an excellent general introduction by Sir Henry Ellis of the British Museum, with indexes of the names of places and of tenants-in-chief mentioned in the work. The other volume contained four other records of the same nature: (1) The Exeter Domesday, already mentioned; (2) the Inquisitio Eliensis, a record closely resembling the Exeter Domesday, containing the survey of the lands of the monastery of Ely, in the counties of Cambridge, Hertford, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Huntingdon; (3) the Winton Domesday, containing two surveys of the city of Winchester, one made between 1107 and 1128, and the other in 1148; and (4) the Boldon Book, a survey of the possessions of the see of Durham, made in 1183. This work is especially valuable in that it partially makes up a deficiency in the survey for Domesday Book, which did not extend to the counties of Durham, Northumberland, Westmoreland, and Cumberland, either, it would seem, because they had lately been laid waste by the Conqueror, or because his authority was not fully established in them. A new and better edition of the Boldon Book was issued in 1852 by the Surtees Society, which in 1857 printed Bishop Hatfield's Survey, another record of the possessions of the see of Durham, compiled between 1345 and 1381. In 1861 a facsimile copy of that part of Domesday Book which related to Cornwall was published by the Ordnance Survey as an example of what could be done by the process of engraving called photozincography. This experiment proving successful, the Government continued publishing the rest of the Domesday Book, county by county, in the same way.

In 1872 the Government ordered a general return of owners of land to be prepared by the Local Government Board. This new Domesday Book was published in 1874-76.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. The literature of the subject is extensive. The more valuable authorities are: Maitland, Domesday and Beyond (London,

Do

amount of care of the species, protection from severe weather, from wild animals, and from one another, and the providing of food or of the conditions under which it may be obtained. mestic animals are also trained to some extent, and are confined or kept within bounds, and, in general, their activities and lives are under control, as distinguished from the freedom and the self-dependence of the wild state.

The changes in food, environment, habits, function, and breeding bring about many modifications in the outward form, external appearance, temper, and general character of animals, which soon distinguish them from their progenitors. The hair or wool becomes of a softer texture, the color of the coat or feathers changes, and the general conformation of the animal is greatly altered. The changed habits of life, as well as the food and the daily work or exercise, tend to the development of some parts of the body more than others, the emphasis of some characteristics and the suppression or elimination of others. Thus the skull of hogs which have not been required to root for their food has become shorter and the snout much blunted, and the intestines of the improved breeds of hogs are much longer in proportion to the size of the animal than those of the wild or earlier domesticated forms. This undoubtedly means that the modern pig, which is highly fed to hasten its growth, can eat a larger quantity of food in a given time, and it may indicate that he can digest it more thoroughly than his ancestors.

It may be said, in general, that under domestication, animals mature earlier, become more fertile, often more prolific, and present a greater tendency to variation than in the wild state. There are exceptions in which these changes are not all apparent, and it should be noted that species differ greatly in the extent to which they respond to and are altered by domestication. Sometimes the changes induced in appearance and characteristics have been comparatively slight, as in the case of the camel, the elephant, and the ostrich; while in other cases they have amounted

to the evolution of forms which in a wild state would be regarded as new species.

As a rule, the species which under domestication have proved most useful to man have possessed high fertility, giving numbers, and marked tendency to variation, giving opportunity for improvement and development in some particular direction by selection and breeding. These are prime requisites to rendering a species of great adaptability and usefulness; and the absence of them in some has restricted the scope of their usefulness. The camel, for instance, appears in its native state to have possessed qualities which suited it admirably to man's uses in a rather limited region; and, not exhibiting a marked tendency to vary, it has not been changed much by man, nor have any traits been artificially developed to a high degree. His range of usefulness will probably remain in its present bounds, and become more and more restricted as civilization advances in the regions where he now finds his greatest usefulness. Cattle, on the other hand, tend strongly toward variation, and breeds showing wide differences in size, tendency to beef production, milk production, and the richness of the milk, have been developed. As between the cat and the dog, the former possesses great fertility and fecundity, but apparently only slight tendency to variation, and hence in all the years that the cat has been domesticated man has not developed from it an animal of much special use beyond that as a pet; while the dog varies so greatly that a number of races have been developed by selection and crossing which differ greatly in character, and many of them have been turned to use in a variety of ways.

Animals differ greatly in their adabtability to domestication. The wild traits seem more firmly stamped on some species than on others. To admit of successful and profitable domestication, they should be of social and docile disposition, and capable of retaining their fertility under changed conditions. Some species will not breed in confinement, or become unproductive. This is often due to inability to observe the natural or customary habits at breeding time, and is observed in some birds. On the other hand, hybrids are more readily produced under domestication. See BREEDS AND BREEDING.

CLASSES OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS. The domestic animals practically all belong to the classes of mammals or birds. The larger number and the more important of the former class are herbivorous, and are kept for their flesh, milk, wool or hair, hide, etc., or as beasts of burden, some species, as cattle, being kept for all of these purposes. The most common of the herbivora are cattle, sheep, goats, the buffalo, yak, reindeer, camel, llama, alpaca (ruminants), and the horse, ass, hog, and elephant (pachyderms). The zebra has been tamed and domesticated to some extent; but, like the elephant, no domesticated race of the species exists. Although the elephant has been much employed for many ages for various purposes in India, the individuals are still taken, to large extent, from the wild denizens of the forest, and this animal can only be said to be half domesticated. The mule, a very important and valuable work-animal, is not a distinct species, but a hybrid, the product of the male ass and the mare, resembling the ass much more than the horse: and the hinny or muto is the product of the stallion and the she-ass, pos

sessing many of the characteristics of the horse. Both of these animals are incapable of reproduction.

Of carnivorous quadrupeds, there are only two which have been generally and thoroughly domesticated-the dog and the cat. These are kept largely as pets and for ornament, although, as noted above, the dog has been bred and trained to many uses, such as herding cattle and sheep, protection of life and property, hunting, and as a beast of burden. Certain species of foxes are kept under domestication in Alaska and bred for their fur; they become tame, but cannot be reckoned among domestic animals in a restricted sense. A long list of other quadrupeds are tamed and kept as pets, and partially or individually domesticated. This is true of the rabbit, guineapig, ferret, and mungoos, for example, which are also useful under some conditions. The Belgian hare has recently been kept and bred quite extensively in a number of countries for its flesh.

Of birds, the most important of the domesticated species are gallinaceous-the common barnyard fowls, of which there are many widely dif ferent varieties, the guinea-hen, and the turkey; to which should be added ducks, geese, and swans, which belong to the web-footed water-birds. Peacocks and pigeons are thoroughly domesticated, being kept principally for ornament, although the breeding of them is something of an industry; and the pheasants and curassows (guans) are of some local importance, though not truly domesticated. The ostrich has for some time been kept in confinement in Africa, and more recently in California and Arizona, where quite large ostrich farms are operated on a commercial scale. The birds pair, lay eggs, and rear young plentifully under these conditions, and may be said to be partially domesticated. Song-birds, parrots, and similar birds which are kept as pets, cannot be said to be truly domesticated species; nor can a long list of birds which have largely abandoned their wild habits for an association with man, such as the swallows, swifts, and other species. The same applies to rats, mice, snakes, vermin, etc., which have associated themselves with man for protection and their own advantage. Fishes are not generally classed among the domestic animals, although kept by man under quite natural conditions for his pleasure and use: are snails, oysters, turtles, etc., to which his care has been extended. These, together with a number of species of useful insects, such as the bee, silkworm, and cochineal-insect, are more properly described as cultivated than as domesticated.

nor

For further details regarding the description and origin of various kinds of domestic animals, see CATTLE; HORSE; SHEEP; FOWL; GOOSE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Darwin, Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (London, 1868; New York, reprint, 1897); Shaler, Domesticated Animals, Their Relation to Man and to His Advancement in Civilization (London, 1896); Hehn, Wanderings of Plants and Animals from Their First Home, trans. by Stallybrass (London, 1888); Low, Domesticated Animals of the British Isles (London, about 1846): Wallace, Farm Live Stock of Great Britain (Edinburgh, 1889); Sanders, The Breeds of Live Stock (Chicago, 1887).

DOMESTIC RELATIONS. A term employed to denote the legal relations subsisting

DOMESTIC RELATIONS.

between the members of a family or household; and the law of domestic relations is the group of rules which define and regulate the rights and duties of these members. The separate grouping of these rules is a matter of convenience, rather than the result of an attempt at logical classification. Indeed, every treatise on this topic contains a large amount of material that is taken bodily from the law of agency, of contract, and of tort. In other words, the law of the domestic relations is not in all its parts a distinct and independent branch of the law, but is made up in large part of legal rules from several branches of the law. As thus conceived, it forms a part of the law of persons, in which the ordinary legal relations are varied by the abnormal status of persons under the various degrees of disability or of legal privilege to which the members of a family are subject. But it also includes the rights arising out of the status of the various family relations, as marriage and divorce, the rights of children against their parents, and the like. The topics ordinarily discussed under this general heading, are those of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, master and servant. It is admitted that the last of these topics carries the discussion far beyond the limits of the modern family or household. For this reason some recent writers on domestic relations have dropped this topic entirely, or limited their consideration of it to the rights and duties of domestic servants. The attempt has been made in some States to codify the rules applicable to this subject. This has been done in New York by a statute known as the Domestic Relations Law. Its scope is fairly indicated by the headings of its various divisions, viz.: Unlawful Marriages; Solemnization, Proof, and Effect of Marriage; Rights and Liabilities of Husband and Wife; The Custody and Wages of Children; Guardians; The Adoption of Children; Apprentices and Servants. See Gilbert, Domestic Relations (Albany, 1902); Rodgers, Domestic Relations (Chicago, 1899); Schouler, Domestic Relations (Boston, 1905); Long, Domestic Relations (St. Paul, 1905); Laws of New York, c. 272 of 1896. See also the articles GUARDIAN; HUSBAND AND WIFE; MASTER AND SERVANT; PARENT AND CHILD, and the authorities mentioned under each of these titles.

DOMESTIC SERVICE. By domestic service is meant the work done in and about the house to provide for the physical comfort of its occupants. It includes the labor of housekeepers, cooks, laundresses, chambermaids, waitresses, nurses, butlers, coachmen, footmen, gardeners, choremen and charwomen, and personal attendants.

The condition of household service in different countries varies according to the remoteness of the countries from the feudal state of society and industry. Where the social organization remains aristocratic, there is a class bred more or less definitely to service, at least as to mental attitude. Where democratic conditions prevail, there is no such class. Yet the relation between employer and employed in domestic labor, even in democratic countries, has not resolved itself as it has in other industries. The personal element remains as between the feudal baron and his retainers. The work is done with all the waste of energy and material attendant upon individual

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

effort as opposed to coöperation. The industry is altogether in an involved transition state.

In ancient times the work of the household was done by slaves. In modern times it has been very largely done by the women of the household, and by women employed by them as helpers. To the former fact is largely due the stigma of social inferiority attaching to domestic service, and to the latter its uncertain standing as an industry.

The social status of the household servant is everywhere about the same; but as the democratic form of government is approached the social inferiority which service involves becomes more and more dreaded and despised, and the marks of it more abhorrent to the servant. For instance, it is often difficult to persuade a maid or a nurse in the United States to wear a cap, and English women servants are beginning to protest against that badge; while German and French ones seem, on the contrary, rather proud of their uniforms.

Except where there is a contract specifying other terms, domestic servants in England are hired by the year. Their wages are payable quarterly. Their master is bound to find them suitable lodging and board. The contract, once entered upon, can be terminated only by a month's notice on the part of the servant or the payment of a month's wages on the part of the employer. Immediate dismissal may follow the discovery of immorality, theft, disobedience, extreme inefficiency, or permanent disability. The employer may not legally keep back money from the servant's wages for any breakage, damage, or loss on the part of the servant.

In Germany a two weeks' notice is sufficient to end the service. The employer there is obliged, at the termination of a servant's employment in his house, to register with the police authorities a letter defining the record of the employee while in his service. This is filed in the police book; and as premiums are paid by masters and mistresses for the servants having the best policebook records, it becomes a matter of moment to the servants to maintain good ones. The objection to this system is that the records are not always entirely accurate, although great care is exercised in the matter by the authorities and strict rules are made to govern it. Most of the German servants are drawn from the peasant class, coming from the country to the provincial towns, and thence to the large cities.

In France and Italy conditions do not greatly differ from those of Germany, except that the police-book system is not used. In France more men are employed for household work, and there is less waste than in any other country. Italy and Spain approach more nearly to the feudal system of domestic service.

In Russia, in the country regions, the feudal system prevails. For a piece of land-about two acres-out of the estate, one cow, and the privilege of raising as many pigs and chickens as the serving family desires, a landed proprietor may obtain whole villages of retainers, the services of all of whom are his at his need. In Saint Petersburg most of the household servants are Finns. Here also enough of the feudal system remains to make it no uncommon thing for a servant to remain twenty years in one family's employ.

In the United States, the earliest white serv

This state of domestic service lasted through the colonial period to the time of the Revolution, when indented service was replaced in the North by free labor, and in the South was entirely superseded by negro slavery.

From the Revolution until the middle of the nineteenth century the servants in the North, except in the great cities, were the social equals of their employers, as is still the case in many parts of the West and Middle West. It was in deference to this equality that the use of the word 'servant' was abandoned and that of 'help' substituted. All suggestion of servitude was abolished. Liveries, even caps, were not worn. The 'help' sat at table with their employers, called the members of the family by their Christian names, and were, in fact, what their name implied-friendly assistants, salaried but independent. This condition of domestic service in the North lasted almost as long as the patriarchal state of slavery in the South.

About the middle of the nineteenth century a change in the state of affairs throughout the United States began with the flood of immigration. The famine of 1846 in Ireland, the German Revolution of 1848, and the conditions preceding and following it, and the treaty of the United States with China in 1844, loosed upon this country an unprecedented number of foreigners. Of the Irish and German immigrants, nearly one-half were women. They entered as 'unskilled laborers.' The household industries have always been sought by unskilled labor. In the East these immigrants entered at once into the serving class. In the West, along the Pacific coast, the Chinese became the competitors of the natives in household labor, working more cheaply and more skillfully, and rapidly displacing such Americans as were engaged in domestic service. These conditions have been somewhat modified by the restrictions on Chinese immigra tion.

The question of domestic service in the South has been a vexed one since the Civil War. The negroes, long held in servitude and unaccustomed to think for themselves, were suddenly loosed upon the community, and given the same rights and privileges as the whites, without knowledge of how to use them. The habit of submission did much to restrain them, and their inherent tendencies have prevented them from organizing to any great extent. Many of them have come North to compete with the immigrants; but this has had no marked effect upon the conditions of domestic service, nor until recently have many white servants been employed in the South. Those who remained in the South have many of the faults of the slaves, with an independence which makes them insusceptible to control; but time, patience, and education are bettering these conditions.

The foreigners in the East found the field ready for them. The women in New England who had in the early days acted as 'help' in their neighbors' homes were entering the recently established factories in large numbers. In the

The foreigners have remained practically in control of the American kitchen ever since they took possession of it. The eleventh census report classifies the domestic servants employed in the various parts of the United States by race thus: In the Eastern States 60.89 per cent. of the household servants are foreign or colored; in the Middle States, 55.29 per cent.; in the Southern States, 83.23 per cent.; in the Border States, 68.35 per cent.; in the Western States, 40.02 per cent.; and in the Pacific States, 62.42 per cent. In only one section of the country, then, do native servants outnumber the foreign and negro. Of the foreigners, the Irish are the most numerous, being 37.64 per cent. of the whole number engaged in domestic service, and the Germans are next, being 21.16 per cent. of the whole number.

In the farming districts of the Northern and Western States the old conditions of equality above mentioned still prevail. The farmers' wives do their own work, with the help of a hired girl,' and the farmer employs for his field work and chores a 'hired man.' Both of these are practically members of his family and his social equals, as they are often sons and daughters of his neighbors. Household servants are found mainly in the large cities, partly on account of the congregation of wealth there, and partly on account of the servant's rooted objec tion to the country-an objection which is doubtless partly due to the foreigner's desire not to be completely isolated from all her kind as well as from her home. In the fifty largest cities of the United States, 18.04 per cent. of the total population of the country is to be found, and 32.32 per cent. of the domestic servants of the country. The wages vary with the region, the Pacific Coast paying much more than the Eastern States, and these in turn more than the Southern States. The average rate paid to household servants on the Pacific Coast is $4.57 a week, against $3.60 in the East and $2.22 in the South. Cooks are the best paid of all domestic servants.

In England and on the Continent, wages are much smaller for household labor than in the United States. Four dollars a week, which is lower than the Western and only a little higher than the Eastern average, is a phenomenally high rate there. In addition, in some parts of the Continent, servants are not necessarily