466
DINGWALL — DIOGNETUS
great success, and it still ranks as one of the best German plays of the period. In the following year he accepted an invitation to undertake the direction of the Royal Theatre at Munich. He proved one of the ablest managers that Germany had ever seen, but incurred the animosity of the Jesuit clique about the court, and in 1856 was suddenly dismissed on the most frivolous charges. A similar engagement was soon offered to him at Weimar through the influence of Liszt, and, although not altogether easy in his situation, he remained there until 1867. His administration wTas most successful, and he especially distinguished himself by putting all Shakespeare’s historical plays upon the stage. In 1867 he removed to Vienna, and directed the Imperial Theatre there until his death in 1881. Among his other works may be noticed an autobiographical sketch of his Munich career, entitled Miinchener Bilderbogen (1879), Die Amazone, an art novel of considerable merit (1869), translations of several of Shakespeare’s comedies, and a treatise on the theatrical administration which he understood so well. His life, founded on his posthumous papers, was written by Julius Rodenberg in 1890. He was ennobled by the Emperor of Austria. Dingelstedt possessed few qualifications for the higher walks of poetry, but his style both in prose and verse was admirable, and he might have been the poet of modern social life. It is probable that the imputation of political apostasy under which he laboured impeded the full exercise of his abilities. (r. g.) Dingwall, a market-town, royal and parliamentary burgh (Wick group), railway station, and county town of Ross-shire, Scotland, on the north-west shore of the Cromarty Firth, 13|- miles north-west of Inverness. A small harbour opens on to the Pefler river. There are county buildings, militia barracks, public hall, a cottage hospital, and a public park. There is an academy. Population (1891), 2300; (1901), 2519. Dinkar Rao, Sir, Raja (1819-1896), Indian statesman, was born in Ratnagiri on 20th December 1819, being a Maratha Brahman. At fifteen he entered the service of the Gwalior state, in which his ancestors had served. Rapidly promoted to the responsible charge of a division, he displayed unusual talents in reorganizing the police and revenue departments, and in reducing chaos to order. In 1852 Dinkar Rao became Dewan. The events which led to the British victories of Maharajpur and Panniar in 1844 had filled the state with mutinous soldiery, ruined the finances, and weakened authority. With a strong hand the Dewan suppressed disorder, abolished ruinous imposts, executed public works, and by a reduction of salaries, including his own, turned a deficit into a surplus. When the contingent mutinied, he never wavered in loyalty; and although the state troops also mutinied in June 1858 on the approach of Tantia Topi, he adhered to the British cause, retiring with the Maharaja Sindhia to the Agra fort. After the restoration of order he remained minister until December 1859, when he resigned. In 1873 he was appointed guardian to the minor Rana of Dholpur, but soon afterwards he resigned, owing to ill-health. In 1875 the Viceroy selected him as a Commissioner, with the Maharajas Sindhia and Jaipur, and three British colleagues, to try the Gaekwar of Baroda on a charge of attempting to poison the British Resident. Ho higher honour could have been conferred on a British subject. He served in the Legislative Council of India, and was frequently consulted by Viceroys on difficult questions. An estate was conferred upon him, and the hereditary title of Raja, for his eminent services, and he also received the decoration of K.C.S.I. He died on 9th January 1896. Ho Indian statesman of the 19th century gained a higher reputation, yet he possessed
none of the qualifications which entitled Salar Jung, Madava Rao, Ranga Charlu, or Sheshadri Aiyar to fame. He only commenced the study of English at the age of forty, and was never able to converse fluently in it; his orthodoxy resented social reforms; he kept aloof from the Congress, and he had received no training in British administration. Finally he resigned the service in Gwalior and Dholpur just when his work seemed likely to bear most fruit. But the verdict of posterity has endorsed the favourable opinion entertained by his contemporaries. (w. L.-w.) Diognetus, Epistle tO«—The one manuscript which contained this letter perished by fire at Strasburg in 1870, but happily it had been accurately collated by Reuss nine years before. It formed part of a collection of works supposed to be by Justin Martyr, and to this mistaken attribution its preservation is no doubt due. The end of it is lost, but there followed in the codex the end of a homily, which was attached without a break to the epistle: this points to the loss in some earlier codex of pages containing the end of the letter and the beginning of the homily. Diognetus has expressed a desire to know -what Christianity really means—“What is this new race” of men who are neither pagans nor Jews! “What is this new interest which has entered into men’s lives now and not before 1 ” The answer begins with a refutation of the folly of worshipping idols, fashioned by human hands and needing to be guarded if of precious material. The repulsive smell of animal sacrifices is enough to show their monstrous absurdity. Hext Judaism is attacked. Jews abstain from idolatry and worship one God, but they fall into the same error of repulsive sacrifice, and have absurd superstitions about meats, and sabbaths, circumcision and new moons. So far the task is easy; but the mystery of the Christian religion “ think not to learn from man.” A passage of great eloquence follows, showing that Christians have no obvious peculiarities that mark them off as a separate race. In spite of blameless lives they are hated. Their home is in heaven, while they live on earth. “ In a word, what the soul is in a body, this the Christians are in the world. . . . The soul is enclosed in the body, and yet itself holdeth the body together: so Christians are kept in the world as in a prison-house, and yet they themselves hold the world together.” This strange life is inspired in them by the almighty and invisible God, who sent no angel or subordinate messenger to teach them, but His own Son by whom He created the universe. Ho man could have known God, had He not thus declared Himself. “ If thou too wouldst have this faith, learn first the knowledge of the Father. For God loved men, for whose sake He made the world . . . Knowing Him, thou wilt love Him and imitate His goodness; and marvel not if a man can imitate God: he can, if God will.” By kindness to the needy, by giving them what God has given to him, a man can become “ a god of them that receive, an imitator of God.” “Then shalt thou on earth behold God’s life in heaven; then shalt thou begin to speak the mysteries of God.” A few lines after this the letter suddenly breaks off. Even this rapid summary may show that the writer was a man of no ordinary power. Both his thought and his language mark him off entirely from Justin Martyr. Bishop Lightfoot, who speaks of the letter as “one of the noblest and most impressive of early Christian apologies, places it c. 150 a.d., and inclines to identify Diognetus with the tutor of M. Aurelius. Harnack would place it later, perhaps in the 3rd century. There are some striking parallels in method and language to the Apology of Aristides, and also to the early “Preaching of Peter,
