DOMENICHINO, or DOMENICO, LAMPIERI, the celebrated painter, was born at Bologna in 1581. He was placed when young under the tuition of Denis Calvart; but having been treated with great severity by that master, he left him, and became a pupil in the academy of the Caracci, where he remained for a long time. The genius of Domenichino was slow in its development. He was at first timid and distrustful of his powers; whilst his studious, thoughtful, and reserved manners were misunderstood by his companions for dulness. But the intelligent Annibal Caracci, who observed his faculties with more attention, and knew his abilities better, testified of Domenichino that his apparent slowness of parts would in time produce what would be an honour to the art of painting. When his early productions had brought him into notice, he studied with incredible application, and made such advances in painting as to raise his works into a comparison with those of the most admired masters. From his acting as a continual censor of his own works, he became amongst his fellow pupils the most accurate and expressive designer; his colours were the truest to nature, and of the best impasto, and he proved the most universal master in the theory of his art; in short, the only painter amongst them all, in whom Mengs found nothing to desire, except a somewhat larger proportion of elegance. That he might devote his whole being to the art, Domenichino shunned all society, or if he occasionally sought it in the public theatres and walks, it was in order better to observe the play of the passions in the features of the people,—those of joy, anger, grief, terror, and every affection of the mind, and to commit them vividly to his tablets; and thus, says Belloni, it was that he succeeded in delineating the soul, in colouring life, and calling forth heartfelt emotions, at which his works all aim, as if he waved the same wand which had belonged to the poetical enchanters Tasso and Ariosto.
After several years' severe study at Bologna, Domenichino went to Parma, in order to examine the beautiful
works of the Lombards, and thence proceeded to Rome, where he assisted Annibal Caracci, and obtained employment through his recommendation from Cardinals Borghese, Farnese, and Aldobrandi, for all of whom he painted works in fresco, which were justly admired. The distinguished reputation which he had acquired excited the jealousy of some of his contemporaries, who represented his very excellencies as defects. Lanfranco in particular, one of his most inveterate enemies, asserted that his Communion of St. Jerome was an imitation from Agostino Caracci, and procured an engraving of this master's picture of the same subject, copies of which were circulated for the purpose of showing up Domenichino as a plagiarist. But this stratagem only tended to expose the calumnious intents of his rivals, as it was evident that there was no other resemblance in the compositions than what must necessarily be the case in the pictures of two artists treating the same subject; and that every essential part, and all that was admired in the work, were entirely his own. If it had been possible for the exertions of modest merit to have repelled the shafts of slander, the pictures which he painted immediately afterwards, representing subjects from the life of St. Cecilia, might have silenced the attacks of envy and malevolence; but they only increased the alarm of his competitors, and redoubled their injustice and malignity. Disgusted with these cabals, Domenichino left Rome for Bologna, where he remained until he was recalled by Pope Gregory XV., who appointed him principal painter and architect to the pontifical palace. But the persecutions of his enemies continued unabated, and are said to have absolutely wearied out his life. He died, not without suspicion of being poisoned, in 1641.
Domenichino, in correctness of design, expression of the passions, and simplicity and variety in the airs of his heads, is allowed to be little inferior to Raffaele. "We must," says Lanzi, "despair to find paintings exhibiting richer or more varied ornaments, accessories more beautifully adapted, or more majestic draperies. The figures are finely disposed both in place and action, conducing to the general effect; whilst a light pervades the whole, which seems to rejoice the spirit, growing brighter and brighter in the aspect of the best countenances, whence they first attract the eye and heart of the beholder." The persons delineated could not tell their tale to the ear more plainly than they speak it to the eye. The Scourging of St. Andrew, which he executed in competition with Guido at Rome, is a powerful illustration of this truthful expression. Of the two works of these masters, Annibal Caracci preferred that of Domenichino. It is said that in painting one of the executioners the artist actually threw himself into a passion, using threatening words and actions, and that Annibal Caracci surprising him at that moment, embraced him, exclaiming with joy, "To-day, my dear Domenichino, thou art teaching me." "So novel," remarks Lanzi, "and at the same time so natural, it appeared to him, that the artist, like the orator, should feel within himself all that he is representing to others." Domenichino is universally esteemed as the most distinguished disciple of the Caracci. Algarotti prefers him to the greatest masters; and Nicolo Poussin considered him as the first painter after Raffaele. His pictures of the Communion of St. Jerome, Adam and Eve, and the Martyrdom of St. Agnes, are esteemed amongst his best works. Domenichino was unrivalled in his frescos. He excelled also in landscape painting. In that style the beauty arising from the natural and simple elegance of his scenery, his trees, his well-broken grounds, and in particular the character and expression of his figures, gained him as much public admiration as any of his other performances.
The worth of Domenichino, as Agucchi foretold, was never rightly appreciated during his lifetime. But the spirit of party which set in so strongly against him whilst living, soon passed away when he was no more; and impartial posterity has done justice to the talents of this illustrious painter, whose works are in the highest esteem, and fetch enormous prices. (z. z.)
DOMESDAY or DOOMSDAY BOOK, a most ancient record, made in the time of William the Conqueror, and containing a survey of all the lands of England. It consists of two volumes, namely, a greater and a less. The first is a large folio, written on 382 double pages of vellum, in a small but plain character, each page having a double column. Some of the capital letters and principal passages are touched with red ink, and some have strokes of red ink run across them, as if scratched out. This volume contains the description of thirty-one counties. The other volume is in quarto, written upon 450 double pages of vellum, but in a single column, and in a large but very fair character. It contains the counties of Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, part of the county of Rutland, included in that of Northampton, and part of Lancashire, in the counties of York and Chester.
This work, according to the red book in the exchequer, was begun by order of William the Conqueror, with the advice of his parliament, in the year 1080, and completed in the year 1086. The reason given for taking this survey, as assigned by several ancient records and historians, was, that every man should be satisfied with his own right, and not usurp with impunity what belonged to another. But besides this, it is stated by others, that all those who possessed landed estates now became vassals to the king, and paid him so much money by way of fee or homage, in proportion to the lands they held; a circumstance which appears very probable, as there was at that time extant a general survey of the whole kingdom, made by order of King Alfred.
For the execution of this survey recorded in Domesday-book, commissioners were sent into every county and shire, and juries summoned in each hundred, out of all orders of freemen, from barons down to the lowest farmers. These commissioners were to be informed by the inhabitants, upon oath, of the name of each manor and that of its owner, also by whom it was held in the time of Edward the Confessor; the number of hides; the quantity of wood, of pasture, and of meadow land; how many ploughs were in the demesne, and how many in the tenanted part of it; how many mills, and how many fish-ponds or fisheries belonged to it; the value of the whole in the time of King Edward, as well as when granted by King William, and at the time of this survey; and also whether it was capable of improvement or of being advanced in value. They were likewise directed to return the tenants of every degree, the quantity of lands then and formerly held by each of them, what was the number of villeins or slaves, and also the number and kinds of their cattle and live stock. These inquiries being first methodized in the county, were afterwards sent up to the king's exchequer.
This survey, at the time when it was made, gave great offence to the people, and occasioned a suspicion that it was intended for some new impost. But notwithstanding all the precaution taken by the Conqueror to have the survey faithfully and impartially executed, it appears that a false return was given in by some of the commissioners, probably, as is alleged, from a pious motive. This was particularly the case with the abbey of Croyland in Lincolnshire, the possessions of which were greatly underrated, both with regard to quantity and value. Perhaps more of these pious frauds were discovered, as it is said Ralph Flambard, minister to William Rufus, proposed
Domestic, making a fresh and more rigorous inquisition; but this was never carried into operation.
Notwithstanding the proof of its falsehood in some instances, which must throw a suspicion on all others, the authority of Domesday-book was never permitted to be called in question; and when it has been necessary to distinguish whether lands were held in ancient demesne or in any other manner, recourse was always had to Domesday-book, and to it only, in order to determine the doubt. From this definitive authority, from which, as from the sentence pronounced at domesday, or the day of judgment, there could be no appeal, the name of the book is said to have been derived. But Stowe assigns another reason for this appellation, namely, that Domesday-book is a corruption of "domus Dei book;" a title given it because heretofore it was deposited in the king's treasury, in a place of the church of Westminster or Winchester called domus Dei. From the great care formerly taken to preserve this survey, we may learn the estimation in which it was held. In the dialogue de Sacramentis it is said, Liber ille (meaning Domesday-book) sigilli regis comes est individuus in thesauro. Until latterly it has been kept under three different locks and keys; one in custody of the treasurer, and the others in that of the two chamberlains of the exchequer. It is now deposited in the chapter-house at Westminster, where it may be consulted, on paying to the proper officers a fee of six-and-eightpence for a search, and fourpence per line for the matter transcribed from it.
Besides the two volumes above mentioned, there is also a third made by order of the same king, and which differs from the others in form rather than in matter. There is likewise a fourth, which is kept in the exchequer, and which, though a very large volume, is only an abridgment of the others. In the remembrancer's office in the exchequer there is kept a fifth book, also called Domesday, which is the same with the fourth book already mentioned. King Alfred had a roll which he called Domesday; and the Domesday-book made by William the Conqueror referred to the time of Edward the Confessor, as that of King Alfred did to the time of Ethelred. As the fourth book of Domesday had many pictures and gilt letters in the beginning, relating to the time of King Edward the Confessor, this led some into an opinion altogether erroneous, namely, that Domesday-book was composed in the reign of King Edward.