1909. The imports were $3,153,609 in 1896 and $7,100,659 in 1909.

As a manufacturing city, Detroit holds high rank. The total number of manufacturing establishments in 1890 was 1746, with a product for the year valued at $77,351,546; in 1900 there were 2847 establishments with a product for the year valued at $100,892,838; or an increase of 30.4% in the decade. In 1900 the establishments under the factory system, omitting the hand trades and neighbourhood industries, numbered 1259 and produced goods valued at $88,365,924; in 1904 establishments under the factory system numbered 1363 and the product had increased 45.7% to $128,761,658. In the district subsequently annexed the product in 1904 was about $12,000,000, making a total of $140,000,000. The output for 1906 was estimated at $180,000,000. The state factory inspectors in 1905 visited 1721 factories having 83,231 employees. In 1906 they inspected 1790 factories with 93,071 employees. Detroit is the leading city in the country in the manufacture of automobiles. In 1904 the value of its product was one-fifth that for the whole country. In 1906 the city had twenty automobile factories, with an output of 11,000 cars, valued at $12,000,000. Detroit is probably the largest manufacturer in the country of freight cars, stoves, pharmaceutical preparations, varnish, soda ash and similar alkaline products. Other important manufactures are ships, paints, foundry and machine shop products, brass goods, furniture, boots and shoes, clothing, matches, cigars, malt liquors and fur goods; and slaughtering and meat packing is an important industry. The Detroit Board of Commerce, organized in 1903, brought into one association the members of three former bodies, making a compact organization with civic as well as commercial aims. The board has brought into active co-operation nearly all the leading business men of the city and many of the professional men. Their united efforts have brought many new industries to the city, have improved industrial conditions, and have exerted a beneficial influence upon the municipal administration. Other business organizations are the Board of Trade, devoted to the grain trade and kindred lines, the Employers' Association, which seeks to maintain satisfactory relations between employer and employed, the Builders' & Traders' Exchange, and the Credit Men's Association. _Administration._--Although the city received its first charter in 1806, and another in 1815, the real power rested in the hands of the governor and judges of the territory until 1824; the charters of 1824 and 1827 centred the government in a council and made the list of elective officers long; the charter of 1827 was revised in 1857 and again in 1859 and the present charter dates from 1883. Under this charter only three administrative officers are elected,--the mayor, the city clerk and the city treasurer,--elections being biennial. The administration of the city departments is largely in the hands of commissions. There is one commissioner each, appointed by the mayor, for the parks and boulevards, police and public works departments. The four members of the health board are nominated by the governor and confirmed by the state senate. The school board is an independent body, consisting of one elected member from each ward holding office for four years, but the mayor has the veto power over its proceedings as well as those of the common council. In each case a two-thirds vote overrules his veto. The other principal officers and commissions, appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council, are controller, corporation counsel, board of three assessors, fire commission (four members), public lighting commission (six members), water commission (five members), poor commission (four members), and inspectors of the house of correction (four in number). The members of the public library commission, six in number, are elected by the board of education. Itemized estimates of expenses for the next fiscal year are furnished by the different departments to the controller in February. He transmits them to the common council with his recommendations. The council has four weeks in which to consider them. It may reduce or increase the amounts asked, and may add new items. The budget then goes to the board of estimates, which has a month for its consideration. This body consists of two members elected from each ward and five elected at large. The mayor and heads of departments are advisory members, and may speak but not vote. The members of the board of estimates can hold no other office and they have no appointing power, the intention being to keep them as free as possible from all political motives and influences. They may reduce or cut out any estimates submitted, but cannot increase any or add new ones. No bonds can be issued without the assent of the board of estimates. The budget is apportioned among twelve committees which have almost invariably given close and conscientious examination to the actual needs of the departments. A reduction of $1,000,000 to $1,500,000, without impairing the service, has been a not unusual result of their deliberations. Prudent management under this system has placed the city in the highest rank financially. Its debt limit is 2% on the assessed valuation, and even that low maximum is not often reached. The debt in 1907 was only about $5,500,000, a smaller _per capita_ debt than that of any other city of over 100,000 inhabitants in the country; the assessed valuation was $330,000,000; the city tax, $14.70 on the thousand dollars of assessed valuation. Both the council and the estimators are hampered in their work by legislative interference. Nearly all the large salaries and many of those of the second grade are made mandatory by the legislature, which has also determined many affairs of a purely administrative character. Detroit has made three experiments with municipal ownership. On account of inadequate and unsatisfactory service by a private company, the city bought the water-works as long ago as 1836. The works have been twice moved and enlargements have been made in advance of the needs of the city. In 1907 there were six engines in the works with a pumping capacity of 152,000,000 gallons daily. The daily average of water used during the preceding year was 61,357,000 gallons. The water is pumped from Lake St Clair and is of exceptional purity. The city began its own public lighting in April 1895, having a large plant on the river near the centre of the city. It lights the streets and public buildings, but makes no provision for commercial business. The lighting is excellent, and the cost is probably less than could be obtained from a private company. The street lighting is done partly from pole and arm lights, but largely from steel towers from 100 ft. to 180 ft. in height, with strong reflected lights at the top. The city also owns two portable asphalt plants, and thus makes a saving in the cost of street repairing and resurfacing. With a view of effecting the reduction of street car fares to three cents, the state legislature in 1899 passed an act for purchasing or leasing the street railways of the city, but the Supreme Court pronounced this act unconstitutional on the ground that, as the constitution prohibited the state from engaging in a work of internal improvement, the state could not empower a municipality to do so. Certain test votes indicated an almost even division on the question of municipal ownership of the railways. _History._--Detroit was founded in 1701 by Antoine Laumet de la Mothe Cadillac (c. 1661-1730), who had pointed out the importance of the place as a strategic point for determining the control of the fur trade and the possession of the North-west and had received assistance from the French government soon after Robert Livingston (1654-1725), the secretary of the Board of Indian Commissioners in New York, had urged the English government to establish a fort at the same place. Cadillac arrived on the 24th of July with about 100 followers. They at once built a palisade fort about 200 ft. square S. of what is now Jefferson Avenue and between Griswold and Shelby streets, and named it Fort Pontchartrain in honour of the French colonial minister. Indians at once came to the place in large numbers, but they soon complained of the high price of French goods; there was serious contention between Cadillac and the French Canadian Fur Company, to which a monopoly of the trade had been granted, as well as bitter rivalry between him and the Jesuits. After the several parties had begun to complain to the home government the monopoly of the fur trade was transferred to Cadillac and he was exhorted to cease quarrelling with the Jesuits. Although the inhabitants then increased to 200 or more, dissatisfaction with the paternal rule of the founder increased until 1710, when he was made governor of Louisiana. The year before, the soldiers had been withdrawn; by the second year after there was serious trouble with the Indians, and for several years following the population was greatly reduced and the post threatened with extinction. But in 1722, when the Mississippi country was opened, the population once more increased, and again in 1748, when the settlement of the Ohio Valley began, the governor-general of Canada offered special inducements to Frenchmen to settle at Detroit, with the result that the population was soon more than 1000 and the cultivation of farms in the vicinity was begun. In 1760, however, the place was taken by the British under Colonel Robert Rogers and an English element was introduced into the population which up to this time had been almost exclusively French. Three years later, during the conspiracy of Pontiac, the fort first narrowly escaped capture and then suffered from a siege lasting from the 9th of May until the 12th of October. Under English rule it continued from this time on as a military post with its population usually reduced to less than 500. In 1778 a new fort was built and named Fort Lernault, and during the War of Independence the British sent forth from here several Indian expeditions to ravage the frontiers. With the ratification of the treaty which concluded that war the title to the post passed to the United States in 1783, but the post itself was not surrendered until the 11th of January 1796, in accordance with Jay's Treaty of 1794. It was then named Fort Shelby; but in 1802 it was incorporated as a town and received its present name. In 1805 all except one or two buildings were destroyed by fire. General William Hull (1753-1825), a veteran of the War of American Independence, governor of Michigan territory in 1805-1812, as commander of the north-western army in 1812 occupied the city. Failing to hear immediately of the declaration of war between the United States and Great Britain, he was cut off from his supplies shipped by Lake Erie. He made from Detroit on the 12th of July an awkward and futile advance into Canada, which, if more vigorous, might have resulted in the capture of Malden and the establishment of American troops in Canada, and then retired to his fortifications. On the 16th of August 1812, without any resistance and without consulting his officers, he surrendered the city to General Brock, for reasons of humanity, and afterwards attempted to justify himself by criticism of the War Department in general and in particular of General Henry Dearborn's armistice with Prevost, which had not included in its terms Hull, whom Dearborn had been sent out to reinforce.[1] After Perry's victory on the 14th of September on Lake Erie, Detroit on the 29th of September was again occupied by the forces of the United States. Its growth was rather slow until 1830, but since then its progress has been unimpeded. Detroit was the capital of Michigan from 1805 to 1847. AUTHORITIES.--Silas Farmer, _The History of Detroit and Michigan_ (Detroit, 1884 and 1889), and "Detroit, the Queen City," in L. P. Powell's _Historic Towns of the Western States_ (New York and London, 1901); D. F. Wilcox, "Municipal Government in Michigan and Ohio," in _Columbia University Studies_ (New York, 1896); C. M. Burton, _"Cadillac's Village" or Detroit under Cadillac_ (Detroit, 1896); Francis Parkman, _A Half Century of Conflict_ (Boston, 1897); and _The Conspiracy of Pontiac_ (Boston, 1898); and the annual _Reports_ of the Detroit Board of Commerce (1904 sqq.). [1] Hull was tried at Albany in 1814 by court martial, General Dearborn presiding, was found guilty of treason, cowardice, neglect of duty and unofficerlike conduct, and was sentenced to be shot; the president remitted the sentence because of Hull's services in the Revolution. DETTINGEN, a village of Germany in the kingdom of Bavaria, on the Main, and on the Frankfort-on-Main-Aschaffenburg railway, 10 m. N.W. of Aschaffenburg. It is memorable as the scene of a decisive battle on the 27th of June 1743, when the English, Hanoverians and Austrians (the "Pragmatic army"), 42,000 men under the command of George II. of England, routed the numerically superior French forces under the duc de Noailles. It was in memory of this victory that Handel composed his _Dettingen Te Deum_. DEUCALION, in Greek legend, son of Prometheus, king of Phthia in Thessaly, husband of Pyrrha, and father of Hellen, the mythical ancestor of the Hellenic race. When Zeus had resolved to destroy all mankind by a flood, Deucalion constructed a boat or ark, in which, after drifting nine days and nights, he landed on Mount Parnassus (according to others, Othrys, Aetna or Athos) with his wife. Having offered sacrifice and inquired how to renew the human race, they were ordered to cast behind them the "bones of the great mother," that is, the stones from the hillside. The stones thrown by Deucalion became men, those thrown by Pyrrha, women. See Apollodorus i. 7, 2; Ovid, _Metam._ i. 243-415; Apollonius Rhodius iii. 1085 ff.; H. Usener, _Die Sintflutsagen_ (1899). DEUCE (a corruption of the Fr. _deux_, two), a term applied to the "two" of any suit of cards, or of dice. It is also a term used in tennis when both sides have each scored three points in a game, or five games in a set; to win the game or set two points or games must then be won consecutively. The earliest instances in English of the use of the slang expression "the deuce," in exclamations and the like, date from the middle of the 17th century. The meaning was similar to that of "plague" or "mischief" in such phrases as "plague on you," "mischief take you" and the like. The use of the word as an euphemism for "the devil" is later. According to the _New English Dictionary_ the most probable derivation is from a Low German _das daus_, i.e. the "deuce" in dice, the lowest and therefore the most unlucky throw. The personification, with a consequent change of gender, to _der daus_, came later. The word has also been identified with the name of a giant or goblin in Teutonic mythology. DEUS, JOÃO DE (1830-1896), the greatest Portuguese poet of his generation, was born at San Bartholomeu de Messines in the province of Algarve on the 8th of March 1830. Matriculating in the faculty of law at the university of Coimbra, he did not proceed to his degree but settled in the city, dedicating himself wholly to the composition of verses, which circulated among professors and undergraduates in manuscript copies. In the volume of his art, as in the conduct of life, he practised a rigorous self-control. He printed nothing previous to 1855, and the first of his poems to appear in a separate form was _La Lata_, in 1860. In 1862 he left Coimbra for Beja, where he was appointed editor of _O Bejense_, the chief newspaper in the province of Alemtejo, and four years later he edited the _Folha do Sul_. As the pungent satirical verses entitled _Eleições_ prove, he was not an ardent politician, and, though he was returned as Liberal deputy for the constituency of Silves in 1869, he acted independently of all political parties and promptly resigned his mandate. The renunciation implied in the act, which cut him off from all advancement, is in accord with nearly all that is known of his lofty character. In the year of his election as deputy, his friend José Antonio Garcia Blanco collected from local journals the series of poems, _Flores do campo_, which is supplemented by the _Ramo de flores_ (1869). This is João de Deus's masterpiece. _Pires de Marmalada_ (1869) is an improvisation of no great merit. The four theatrical pieces--_Amemos o nosso proximo_, _Ser apresentado_, _Ensaio de Casamento_, and _A Viúva inconsolavel_--are prose translations from Méry, cleverly done, but not worth the doing. _Horacio e Lydia_ (1872), a translation from Ronsard, is a good example of artifice in manipulating that dangerously monotonous measure, the Portuguese couplet. As an indication of a strong spiritual reaction three prose fragments (1873)--_Anna, Mãe de Maria_, _A Virgem Maria_ and _A Mulher do Levita de Ephrain_--translated from Darboy's _Femmes de la Bible_, are full of significance. The _Folhas soltas_ (1876) is a collection of verse in the manner of _Flores do campo_, brilliantly effective and exquisitely refined. Within the next few years the writer turned his attention to educational problems, and in his _Cartilha maternal_ (1876) first expressed the conclusions to which his study of Pestalozzi and Fröbel had led him. This patriotic, pedagogical apostolate was a misfortune for Portuguese literature; his educational mission absorbed João de Deus completely, and is responsible for numerous controversial letters, for a translation of Théodore-Henri Barrau's treatise, _Des devoirs des enfants envers leurs parents_, for a prosodic dictionary and for many other publications of no literary value. A copy of verses in Antonio Vieira's _Grinalda de Maria_ (1877), the _Loas á Virgem_ (1878) and the _Proverbios de Salomão_ are evidence of a complete return to orthodoxy during the poet's last years. By a lamentable error of judgment some worthless pornographic verses entitled _Cryptinas_ have been inserted in the completest edition of João de Deus's poems--_Campo de Flores_ (Lisbon, 1893). He died at Lisbon on the 11th of January 1896, was accorded a public funeral and was buried in the National Pantheon, the Jeronymite church at Belem, where repose the remains of Camoens, Herculano and Garrett. His scattered minor prose writings and correspondence have been posthumously published by Dr Theophilo Braga (Lisbon, 1898). Next to Camoens and perhaps Garrett, no Portuguese poet has been more widely read, more profoundly admired than João de Deus; yet no poet in any country has been more indifferent to public opinion and more deliberately careless of personal fame. He is not responsible for any single edition of his poems, which were put together by pious but ill-informed enthusiasts, who ascribed to him verses that he had not written; he kept no copies of his compositions, seldom troubled to write them himself, and was content for the most part to dictate them to others. He has no great intellectual force, no philosophic doctrine, is limited in theme as in outlook, is curiously uncertain in his touch, often marring a fine poem with a slovenly rhyme or with a misplaced accent; and, on the only occasion when he was induced to revise a set of proofs, his alterations were nearly all for the worse. And yet, though he never appealed to the patriotic spirit, though he wrote nothing at all comparable in force or majesty to the restrained splendour of _Os Lusiadas_, the popular instinct which links his name with that of his great predecessor is eminently just. For Camoens was his model; not the Camoens of the epic, but the Camoens of the lyrics and the sonnets, where the passion of tenderness finds its supreme utterance. Braga has noted five stages of development in João de Deus's artistic life--the imitative, the idyllic, the lyric, the pessimistic and the devout phases. Under each of these divisions is included much that is of extreme interest, especially to contemporaries who have passed through the same succession of emotional experience, and it is highly probable that _Caturras_ and _Gaspar_, pieces as witty as anything in Bocage but free from Bocage's coarse impiety, will always interest literary students. But it is as the singer of love that João de Deus will delight posterity as he delighted his own generation. The elegiac music of _Rachel_ and of _Marina_, the melancholy of _Adeus_ and of _Remoinho_, the tenderness and sincerity of _Meu casta lirio_, of _Lagrima celeste_, of _Descalça_ and a score more songs are distinguished by the large, vital simplicity which withstands time. It is precisely in the quality of unstudied simplicity that João de Deus is incomparably strong. The temptations to a display of virtuosity are almost irresistible for a Portuguese poet; he has the tradition of virtuosity in his blood, he has before him the example of all contemporaries, and he has at hand an instrument of wonderful sonority and compass. Yet not once is João de Deus clamorous or rhetorical, not once does he indulge in idle ornament. His prevailing note is that of exquisite sweetness and of reverent purity; yet with all his caressing softness he is never sentimental, and, though he has not the strength for a long fight, emotion has seldom been set to more delicate music. Had he included among his other gifts the gift of selection, had he continued the poetic discipline of his youth instead of dedicating his powers to a task which, well as he performed it, might have been done no less well by a much lesser man, there is scarcely any height to which he might not have risen. See also Maxime Formont, _Le Mouvement poétique contemporain en Portugal_ (Lyon, 1892). (J. F.-K.) DEUTERONOMY, the name of one of the books of the Old Testament. This book was long the storm-centre of Pentateuchal criticism, orthodox scholars boldly asserting that any who questioned its Mosaic authorship reduced it to the level of a pious fraud. But Biblical facts have at last triumphed over tradition, and the non-Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy is now a commonplace of criticism. It is still instructive, however, to note the successive phases through which scholarly opinion regarding the composition and date of his book has passed. In the 17th century the characteristics which so clearly mark off Deuteronomy from the other four books of the Pentateuch were frankly recognized, but the most advanced critics of that age were inclined to pronounce it the earliest and most authentic of the five. In the beginning of the 19th century de Wette startled the religious world by declaring that Deuteronomy, so far from being Mosaic, was not known till the time of Josiah. This theory he founded on 2 Kings xxii.; and ever since, this chapter has been one of the recognized foci of Biblical criticism. The only other single chapter of the Bible which is responsible for having brought about a somewhat similar revolution in critical opinion is Ezek. xliv. From this chapter, some seventy years after de Wette's discovery, Wellhausen with equal acumen inferred that Leviticus was not known to Ezekiel, the priest, and therefore could not have been in existence in his day; for had Leviticus been the recognized Law-book of his nation Ezekiel could not have represented as a degradation the very position which that Law-book described as a special honour conferred on the Levites by Yahweh himself. Hence Leviticus, so far from belonging to an earlier stratum of the Pentateuch than Deuteronomy, as de Wette thought, must belong to a much later stratum, and be at least exilic, if not post-exilic. The title "Deuteronomy" is due to a mistranslation by the Septuagint of the clause in chap. xvii. 18, rendered "and he shall write out for himself this Deuteronomy." The Hebrew really means "and he [the king] shall write out for himself a copy of this law," where there is not the slightest suggestion that the author intended to describe "this law" delivered on the plains of Moab as a second code in contradistinction to the first code given on Sinai thirty-eight years earlier. Moreover the phrase "this law" is so ambiguous as to raise a much greater difficulty than that caused by the Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew word for "copy." How much does "this law" include? It was long supposed to mean the whole of our present Deuteronomy; indeed, it is on that supposition that the traditional view of the Mosaic authorship is based. But the context alone can determine the question; and that is often so ambiguous that a sure inference is impossible. We may safely assert, however, that nowhere need "this law" mean the whole book. In fact, it invariably means very much less, and sometimes, as in xxvii. 3, 8, so little that it could all be engraved in large letters on a few plastered stones set up beside an altar. Deuteronomy is not the work of any single writer but the result of a long process of development. The fact that it is legislative as well as hortatory is enough to prove this, for most of the laws it contains are found elsewhere in the Pentateuch, sometimes in less developed, sometimes in more developed forms, a fact which is conclusive proof of prolonged historical development. According to the all-pervading law of evolution, the less complex form must have preceded the more complex. Still, the book does bear the stamp of one master-mind. Its style is as easily recognized as that of Deutero-Isaiah, being as remarkable for its copious diction as for its depths of moral and religious feeling. The original Deuteronomy, D, read to King Josiah, cannot have been so large as our present book, for not only could it be read at a single sitting, but it could be easily read twice in one day. On the day it was found, Shaphan first read it himself, and then went to the king and read it aloud to him. But perhaps the most conclusive proof of its brevity is that it was read publicly to the assembled people immediately before they, as well as their king, pledged themselves to obey it; and not a word is said as to the task of reading it aloud, so as to be heard by such a great multitude, being long or difficult. The legislative part of D consists of fifteen chapters (xii.-xxvi.), which, however, contain many later insertions. But the impression made upon Josiah by what he heard was far too deep to have been produced by the legislative part alone. The king must have listened to the curses as well as the blessings in chap, xxviii., and no doubt also to the exhortations in chaps. v.-xi. Hence we may conclude that the original book consisted of a central mass of religious, civil and social laws, preceded by a hortatory introduction and followed by an effective peroration. The book read to Josiah must therefore have comprised most of what is found in Deut. v.-xxvi., xxvii. 9, 10 and xxviii. But something like two centuries elapsed before the book reached its present form, for in the closing chapter, as well as elsewhere, e.g. i. 41-43 (where the joining is not so deftly done as usual) and xxxii. 48-52, there are undoubted traces of the Priestly Code, P, which is generally acknowledged to be post-exilic. The following is an analysis of the main divisions of the book as we now have it. There are two introductions, the first i.-iv. 44, more historical than hortatory; the second v.-xi., more hortatory than historical. These may at first have been prefixed to separate editions of the legislative portion, but were eventually combined. Then, before D was united to P, five appendices of very various dates and embracing poetry as well as prose, were added so as to give a fuller account of the last days of Moses and thus lead up to the narrative of his death with which the book closes. (1) Chap. xxvii., where the elders of Israel are introduced for the first time as acting along with Moses (xxvii. 1) and then the priests, the Levites (xxvii. 9). Some of the curses refer to laws given not in D but in Lev. xxx., so that the date of this chapter must be later than Leviticus or at any rate than the laws codified in the Law of Holiness (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.). (2) The second appendix, chaps, xxix.-xxxi. 29, xxxii. 45-47, gives us the farewell address of Moses and is certainly later than D. Moses is represented as speaking not with any hope of preventing Israel's apostasy but because he knows that the people will eventually prove apostate (xxxi. 29), a point of view very different from D's. (3) The Song of Moses, chap. xxxii. That this didactic poem must have been written late in the nation's history, and not at its very beginning, is evident from v. 7: "Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations." Such words cannot be interpreted so as to fit the lips of Moses. It must have been composed in a time of natural gloom and depression, after Yahweh's anger had been provoked by "a very froward generation," certainly not before the Assyrian Empire had loomed up against the political horizon, aggressive and menacing. Some critics bring the date down even to the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. (4) The Blessing of Moses, chap, xxxiii. The first line proves that this poem is not by D, who speaks invariably of Horeb, never of Sinai. The situation depicted is in striking contrast with that of the Song. Everything is bright because of promises fulfilled, and the future bids fair to be brighter still. Bruston maintains with reason that the Blessing, strictly so called, consists only of vv. 6-25, and has been inserted in a Psalm celebrating the goodness of Jehovah to his people on their entrance into Canaan (vv. 1-5, 26-29). The special prominence given to Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) in vv. 13-17 has led many critics to assign this poem to the time of the greatest warrior-king of Northern Israel, Jeroboam II. (5) The account of Moses' death, chap. xxxiv. This appendix, containing, as it does, manifest traces of P, proves that even Deuteronomy was not put into its present form until after the exile. From the many coincidences between D and the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.) it is clear that D was acquainted with E, the prophetic narrative of the Northern kingdom; but it is not quite clear whether D knew E as an independent work, or after its combination with J, the somewhat earlier prophetic narrative of the Southern kingdom, the combined form of which is now indicated by the symbol JE. Kittel certainly puts it too strongly when he asserts that D quotes always from E and never from J, for some of the passages alluded to in D may just as readily be ascribed to J as to E, cf. Deut. i. 7 and Gen. xv. 18; Deut. x. 14 and Ex. xxxiv. 1-4. Consequently D must have been written certainly after E and possibly after E was combined with J. In Amos, Hosea and Isaiah there are no traces of D's ideas, whereas in Jeremiah and Ezekiel their influence is everywhere manifest. Hence this school of thought arose between the age of Isaiah and that of Jeremiah; but how long D itself may have been in existence before it was read in 622 to Josiah cannot be determined with certainty. Many argue that D was written immediately before it was found and that, in fact, it was put into the temple for the purpose of being "found." This theory gives some plausibility to the charge that the book is a pious fraud. But the narrative in 2 Kings xxii. warrants no such inference. The more natural explanation is that it was written not in the early years of Josiah's reign, and with the cognizance of the temple priests then in office, but some time during the long reign of Manasseh, probably when his policy was most reactionary and when he favoured the worship of the "host of heaven" and set up altars to strange gods in Jerusalem itself. This explains why the author did not publish his work immediately, but placed it where he hoped it would be safely preserved till opportunity should arise for its publication. One need not suppose that he actually foresaw how favourable that opportunity would prove, and that, as soon as discovered, his work would be promulgated as law by the king and willingly accepted by the people. The author believed that everything he wrote was in full accordance with the mind of Moses, and would contribute to the national weal of Yahweh's covenant people, and therefore he did not scruple to represent Moses as the speaker. It is not to be expected that modern scholars should be able to fix the exact year or even decade in which such a book was written. It is enough to determine with something like probability the century or half-century which best fits its historical data; and these appear to point to the reign of Manasseh. Between D and P there are no verbal parallels; but in the historical résumés JE is followed closely, whole clauses and even verses being copied practically verbatim. As Dr Driver points out in his careful analysis, there are only three facts in D which are not also found in JE, viz. the number of the spies, the number of souls that went down into Egypt with Jacob, and the ark being made of acacia wood. But even these may have been in J or E originally, and left out when JE was combined with P. Steuernagel divides the legal as well as the hortatory parts of D between two authors, one of whom uses the 2nd person plural when addressing Israel, and the other the 2nd person singular; but as a similar alternation is constantly found in writings universally acknowledged to be by the same author, this clue seems anything but trustworthy, depending as it does on the presence or absence of a single Hebrew letter, and resulting, as it frequently does, in the division of verses which otherwise seem to be from the same pen (cf. xx. 2). The inference as to diversity of authorship is much more conclusive when difference of standpoint can be proved, cf. v. 3, xi. 2 ff. with viii.